University  of  California  •  Berkeley 


HAYWOOD     TRIAL 

CLOSING  ARGUMENT 

OF 

W.  E.  BORAH 


HAYWOOD     TRIAL 


CLOSING  ARGUMENT 

OF 

W.  E.  BORAH 


May  It  Please  the  Court — Gentlemen  of  the  Jury : 

You  have  been  patient  throughout  this  long  and  tedious 
trial,  and  you  have  listened  with  marked  attention  to  the 
evidence  which  has  been  given,  and  with  especial  attention  to 
the  arguments  which  have  been  made  by  counsel  both  for 
the  opening  and  for  the  defense.  I  regret  that  I  am  compelled 
to  commence  this  argument  at  a  time  of  day  when  you  must 
be  somewhat  weary  and  at  a  time  in  the  trial  when  you  must 
be  impatient  to  get  to  your  final  duty  and  to  the  final  discharge 
of  the  great  task  which  has  been  imposed  upon  you.  But  I 
will  not  take  up  more  of  your  time  than  seems  necessary  for 
the  presentation  of  the  State's  cause — more  than  is  essential 
to  in  some  degree  and  to  some  extent  review  the  arguments 
made  by  the  very  able  and  very  eloquent  counsel  upon  the 
part  of  the  defense. 

Special  Prosecutor. 

I  am  conscious  at  this  time  and  by  this  time  that  I  am 
a  special  prosecutor.  It  has  been  impressed  upon  my  mind 
several  times  during  the  trial  and  several  times  during  the 
arguments  of  counsel  for  the  defense.  I  am  not  aware,  how- 
ever, that  the  fact  that  I  am  a  special  prosecutor  should  add 
anything  in  the  way  of  disparagement  or  discredit  to  my  ap- 
pearance before  you  to  say  the  last  word  that  is  to  be  said 
upon  behalf  of  the  State.  The  State  has  the  right  to  employ 
such  counsel  as  it  deems  necessary,  both  in  number  and 
standing.  It  may  not  always  act  with  wisdom  or  select  those 


most  capable  of  meeting  those  who  come  here  for  the  de- 
fense, but  such  counsel  as  it  selects  are  entitled  to  appear  be- 
fore you,  accredited  with  the  same  integrity  of  professional 
purpose  as  is  accredited  to  counsel  for  defense. 

State's  Responsibility. 

There  is  no  graver  or  more  important  responsibility  rest- 
ing upon  a  State  than  that  of  protecting  property  and  pre- 
serving life,  of  enforcing  law  and  administering  justice.  A 
State  which  can  not  protect  its  citizens,  shield  life  from  the 
assassin's  malice,  will  soon  lose  its  place  in  the  hearts  of 
men"  and  in  the  affections  of  patriots.  These  are  among  the 
first  great  obligations  of  State  and  government,  and  those 
who  assume  to  stand  in  the  forefront  of  the  work  are  entitled 
to  have  at  least  a  patient  hearing  before  all  tribunals. 

County  Attorney  Van  Duyn. 

Something  has  been  said  here  in  this  case  with  reference 
to  the  fact  that  some  of  those  who  are  supposed  to  represent 
the  State  have  been  supplanted.  There  are  no  differences 
between  counsel  at  the  prosecution's  table  that  I  know  of. 
We  are  all  satisfied  with  the  different  positions  to  which  we 
have  been  assigned.  The  different  duties  have  been  assigned 
and  they  have  been  entirely  satisfactory  to  those  who  are  en- 
gaged in  this  prosecution.  It  has  been  our  effort  in  this  case 
to  please  as  best  we  could  the  merest  whims  of  counsel  for 
the  defense,  but  they  are  presuming  when  they  would  assign 
the  different  positions  of  counsel  for  the  prosecution.  I  do 
not  know  of  any  reason  why  the  elected  County  Attorney  of 
Canyon  County  should  be  subjected  to  the  criticism  which 
has  been  his  in  this  case,  or  why  objections  should  be  found 
to  the  particular  duties  which  he  has  been  called  upon  to  per- 


form.  He  was  elected  before  and  he  has  been  elected  since  he 
commenced  the  performance  of  his  duty  in  this  case.  He  is  the 
chosen  representative  of  Canyon  County,  the  county  in  which 
this  murder  took  place,  and  he  has  simply  performed  his  duty 
in  connection  with  his  associates  in  a  conscientious,  unfalter- 
ing and  upright  manner.  He  has  been  fearless  and  he  is  in- 
corruptible. It  may  be  possible  that  the  defense  has  some 
reason  to  speak  so  disparagingly  of  a  man  who  has  had  the 
courage  to  go  forth  and  present  this  matter  to  the  officers  of 
the  law,  to  put  the  machinery  in  motion  by  which  it  was  to 
be  determined  who  was  the  author  of  the  awful  crime  of  De- 
cember 30th.  Those  engaged  in  the  commission  of  crime  are 
seldom  satisfied  with  the  conduct  of  those  whose  duty  it  is 
to  uncover  it.  We  apprehend  that  no  one  other  than  the  de- 
fense could  find  fault  with  a  prosecutor  who  undertook  to 
ascertain  the  author  of  this  awful  crime. 

Associate  Hawley. 

Likewise,  unjust  has  been  the  attack  upon  my  associate,  Mr. 
Hawley.  Why  it  was  made  I  can  not  understand.  It  ought 
to  be  sufficient  and  satisfactory  to  answer  a  man's  argument. 
It  ought  to  be  sufficient  to  do  away  with  his  logic.  I  know 
of  no  reason  why  a  man  who  has  lived  in  this  community  for 
forty  years  and  whose  integrity,  and  loyalty  to  his  clients, 
have  never  been  questioned  should  be  attacked  apparently 
upon  the  theory  even  of  corruption.  The  burden  of  this  case 
has  been  upon  him.  He  is  the  man  who  has  had  charge  of  it 
in  a  large  measure.  You  have  observed  the  condition  to  which 
his  health  has  been  brought.  Perhaps  he  was  more  irritable  at 
times  than  he  should  have  been  with  Mr.  Darrow.  But  you 
must  be  satisfied  with  one  proposition,  that  he  has  fairly, 
earnestly  and  determinedly  presented  such  evidence  as  the 


State  had  and  has  asked  at  your  hands  a  verdict  upon  that 
evidence — nothing  more.  But  there  seems  to  be  running 
through  this  case  in  some  way  and  for  some  reason  an  in- 
sidious attack  upon  every  one,  whether  high  or  low,  associated 
directly  or  indirectly  with  the  investigation  of  the  crime  of 
December  30,  1905.  They  have  the  right  to  insist  upon  the  in- 
nocence of  their  client,  but  an  attack  upon  officers  of  the  law 
who  understake  to  investigate  that  crime  can  find  no  justifi- 
cation in  the  minds  of  right  thinking  men. 

The  Awful  Story. 

Gentlemen,  I  am  not  going  to  undertake  to  make  a  speech 
nor  to  talk  to  you,  but  I  am  simply  going  to  talk  with  you 
about  the  evidence  in  this  case.  The  awful  story  which  has 
been  told  here  in  the  court  room — testimony  which  has  come 
from  the  lips  of  witnesses — is  far  more  eloquent  and  presents 
a  much  stronger  plea  for  justice  than  anything  I  could  say. 
If  the  facts  which  have  been  narrated  before  you  are  true,  if 
the  conditions  which  have  been  painted  here  from  the  lips 
of  the  many  different  witnesses  are  true  conditions,  there 
could  be  no  plea  so  eloquent  or  so  strong  for  the  full  discharge 
of  fearless  duty  upon  the  part  of  jurors  as  the  plea  made  by 
these  facts  and  those  conditions.  I  must  be  content,  there- 
fore, without  undertaking  to  go  outside  of  the  record,  or  add 
to  it,  or  to  add  very  much  in  the  way  of  my  own  suggestions, 
to  simply  call  your  attention  to  the  salient  features  of  the  evi- 
dence, relying  upon  the  evidence  to  supply  the  eloquence 
which  the  prosecution  has  not  but  with  which  the  defense  is 
so  well  supplied. 

One  thing  is  true,  there  can  be  no  doubt  about  it,  one  thing 
which  will  not  be  disputed,  and  that  is  that  a  terrible  con- 
dition of  affairs  prevails  and  has  prevailed  for  the  last  five 


years  in  this  intermountain  country.  If  there  is  any  one 
thing  that  is  established  now  beyond  all  question,  not  sub- 
ject to  dispute,  it  is  that  some  twenty  odd  crimes  have  been 
committed  here  in  this  country,  here  where  we  live  and  ex- 
pect to  live,  where  our  homes  are  and  where  they  are  to  be, 
and  notwithstanding  that  all  of  these  crimes  have  been  com- 
mitted not  a  single  individual  has  been  whipped  of  justice. 
That  condition  of  affairs  exists  beyond  all  question  and  that 
condition  of  affairs  has  been  revealed  fully  and  fairly  to  this 
jury — not  disputed  and  can  not  be  disputed.  What  more  could 
be  said  or  what  more  could  be  proven  which  would  appeal  to 
you  to  be  careful  and  conscientious,  courageous  and  brave  in 
the  final  discharge  of  your  duty — to  be  careful  to  locate  the 
source  of  those  crimes,  ascertain  the  power  which  has  caused 
this  condition  to  prevail,  and  then  bravely  administer  the  pun- 
ishment where  it  belongs. 

Vicarious  Atonement. 

But  notwithstanding  those  conditions,  and  lest  I  should  be 
misunderstood,  the  defendant  in  this  case  is  entitled  to  be 
tried  upon  the  evidence  which  is  adduced  in  this  court  room 
and  upon  that  alone.  He  is  entitled  to  have  a  verdict  based 
upon  nothing  more  than  the  testimony  which  has  been  given 
you  here  and  which  will  be  submitted  to  you  by  the  court 
under  its  instructions.  It  has  been  said  quite  often  by  the 
defense  that  the  defendant  is  not  to  be  subjected  to  a  verdict 
of  guilty  until  this  evidence  satisfies  you  of  his  guilt  beyond  a 
reasonable  doubt.  There  is  no  question  about  that  principle 
of  law.  The  State  does  not  dispute  it,  of  course.  It  is  a  prin- 
ciple so  well  grounded  in  criminal  law,  so  well  understood 
by  all,  that,  without  unnecessary  precaution,  it  accompanies 
a  man  from  the  time  of  the  charge  until  the  jury  finally 


makes  up  its  mind.  Another  thing:  We  do  not  ask  in  this 
case  anything  in  the  way  of  a  vicarious  atonement.  We  do 
not  want  Mr.  Haywood  punished  for  someone  else's  crime. 
We  do  not  want  the  defendant  in  this  case  to  suffer  by  reason 
of  the  crime  of  Harry  Orchard  if  he  was  not  in  fact  connected 
with  it,  aiding,  abetting  and  assisting  in  its  perpetration.  We 
do  not  want  this  defendant  convicted  of  the  crime  of  George 
A.  Pettibone  if  he  was  not  associated  and  connected  with  him 
as  a  co-conspirator.  We  do  not  want  him  punished  for  the 
crime  of  Jack  Simpkins  unless  he  was  also  a  co-conspirator 
with  him.  We  ask,  as  I  say,  for  no  punishment  other  than 
that  which  is  warranted  under  the  law  and  upon  the  evidence 
— no  punishment  unless  the  defendant  was  associated  and  con- 
nected with  the  offense  so  as  to  make  him  responsible  there- 
for. 

Fair  Jury, 

Much  has  been  said  in  the  argument  by  the  defense  with 
reference  to  the  fact  that  the  defendant  comes  before  a  jury 
poisoned  with  prejudice,  for  weeks  and  months — before  a 
jury  coming  from  a  community,  as  said  by  the  eloquent  coun- 
sel from  Chicago,  crying  for  the  blood  of  Haywood.  Do  you 
know  of  any  such  condition  of  affairs?  Have  you  heard  of 
any  facts  of  that  nature?  Do  you  know  of  any  poison  that 
has  been  lodged  in  your  own  hearts  or  any  bias  that  is  at- 
tached to  your  own  minds?  Have  you  heard  of  anybody  in 
Boise  City  asking  for  the  blood  of  William  Haywood?  Have 
you  heard  of  any  conditions  which  make  you  think  that  a 
community  is  here  seeking  the  life  of  this  man  regardless  of 
his  guilt?  When  you  were  called  upon  this  jury  and  exam- 
ined upon  your  voir  dire,  and  you  were  thoroughly  examined, 
you  stated  to  the  court  and  to  the  community  that  your  minds 


were  free  of  bias  and  of  prejudice,  that  your  hearts  were  clear 
of  malice,  and  holding  your  hand  to  high  heaven  you  stated 
you  could  give  this  defendant  a  fair  and  impartial  trial.  No 
(•no  doubts  that  proposition  now.  No  one  doubts  that  if  Mr. 
Haywood  is  sent  back  to  Denver  it  will  be  because  a  fair  and 
impartial  jury  has  passed  upon  his  cause ;  no  one  doubts  that 
if  he  is  subjected  to  punishment  for  this  crime  it  will  be  be- 
cause a  fair  and  impartial  jury  has  passed  upon  his  cause.  It 
is  either  too  early  or  too  late  to  talk  about  poisoned  minds 
and  inflamed  communities.  Whether  he  is  guilty  or  innocent 
is  for  you  to  determine.  But  no  man  ever  sat  in  a  court  room 
where  there  was  greater  fairness,  more  impartiality,  more  of 
a  determination  to  give  him  a  fair  and  impartial  trial.  If  there 
is  anything  of  which  the  City  of  Boise  and  the  State  of  Idaho 
should  be  proud  it  is  the  fact  that  notwithstanding  one  of 
our  most  prominent  citizens  has  been  murdered,  notwith- 
standing the  fact  that  every  rule  upon  which  society  is  found- 
ed was  in  the  commission  of  that  crime  set  at  defiance,  and 
even  the  very  integrity  of  the  State  assaulted,  nevertheless 
they  have  gone  deliberately,  earnestly,  fairly  and  impartially 
about  the  matter  of  determining  who  did  it  and  to  let  the  par- 
ties suffer  or  go  free  as  the  evidence  directs. 

Not  Fighting  Organized  Labor. 

Another  thing:  We  are  not  fighting  organized  labor.  We 
are  not  fighting  the  weak  and  the  poor.  Neither  are  we  here 
to  consent  that  organized  labor  shall  be  a  shield  to  crime. 
Neither  are  we  willing  that  a  man  in  any  station  of  life  shall 
take  life  with  impunity.  This  is  not  a  fight  on  organized  labor 
—it  is  simply  a  trial  for  murder.  Frank  Steunenberg  has 
been  murdered  and  we  want  to  know.  An  awful  crime  has 
been  committed  and  the  integrity  and  manhood  of  Idaho  want 


10 

to  know.  An  offense  which  startled  the  civilized  world  was 
committed  within  our  borders,  and  unless  we  had  earnestly 
and  determinedly  endeavored  to  know  the  author  we  would 
be  unfit  to  be  called  a  commonwealth  among  the  sisterhood 
of  commonwealths  of  this  Union.  Simply  because  earnest 
men  determined  to  act,  and  have  found  evidence  which  led 
them  to  go  further  and  investigate,  does  not  mean  a  fight 
upon  organized  labor.  It  does  not  mean,  as  my  eloquent 
friend  says,  industrial  warfare.  It  does  not  mean  class  against 
class,  faction  of  society  against  faction.  It  does  not  mean 
the  rich  against  the  poor,  the  poor  against  the  rich.  It*  means 
law,  justice  and  fairness,  and  the  verdict  of  this  jury  will  be 
in  accordance  with  those  principles,  whether  it  be  freedom  or 
conviction.  But  if  I  were  fighting  the  cause  of  labor — and 
there  are  surely  some  friends  of  labor  aside  from  those  who 
flaunt  their  friendship  to  the  four  winds — if  I  were  fighting 
the  cause  of  labor  I  would  not  seek  to  engender  hatred  and 
ill-will,  faction  against  faction  or  class  against  class.  I  would 
not  inveigh  against  law ;  I  would  not  inveigh  against  society ; 
I  would  not  inveigh  against  every  man  who  owns  his  home 
or  his  farm ;  I  would  not  inveigh  against  Christianity,  because 
without  those  things  the  laboring  man  goes  down  into  slavery 
and  the  dirt.  You  had  a  lesson  in  the  French  revolution. 
You  had  it  all  told  to  you  in  the  fall  of  the  Roman  Empire. 
The  moment  one  class  is  arrayed  against  the  other,  faction 
against  faction,  the  rich  against  the  poor,  and  hatred  and  ill- 
will  fills  the  gulf  between,  the  man  who  goes  to  the  bottom 
first  is  the  man  who  toils.  His  protection  and  his  only  pro- 
tection, his  safety  and  his  only  safety,  is  in  the  flag,  in  the 
integrity  of  the  State,  the  integrity  of  law.  His  protection 
consists  in  maintaining  the  integrity  of  that  fabric  under 
which  we  have  lived  and  under  which  he  has  prospered  more 
than  any  other  place  upon  the  face  of  the  earth. 


11 

Crime  of  December  30th. 

Let  us  consider  for  a. few  moments  the  crime  of  December 
30,  1905.  Not  much  has  been  said  about  that  matter  because 
the  facts  are  undisputed.  Not  much  time  has  been  taken  in 
discussing  the  features  of  and  the  circumstances  surrounding 
that  offense,  or  the  conditions  or  environments  which  pre- 
vailed there  just  before  and  just  after  the  murder.  But  it  is 
well  for  us  to  consider  it  for  a  few  moments  because,  in  my 
opinion,  the  manner  of  the  commission  of  that  crime,  the  cir- 
cumstances, the  undisputed  facts,  when  properly  weighed  and 
considered,  will  throw  a  great  deal  of  light  upon  who  did  it. 
It  will  enable  us  to  look  with  more  certainty  into  some  other 
offenses  which  have  been  referred  to  before  you.  It  is  a  rush- 
light which  if  you  take  with  you  down  the  criminal  way  of 
Harry  Orchard  will  enable  you  to  see  many  times  the  truth 
of  his  testimony. 

Experienced  Criminal 

In  the  first  place,  the  man  who  committed  that  crime  was 
an  experienced  criminal.  He  was  a  man  of  years  of  experi- 
ence in  the  commission  of  that  kind  of  crimes — a  man  who 
had  killed  before  and  in  that  way.  It  has  the  touch  and  finish, 
the  diabolical  completeness  of  the  work  of  a  master.  The 
man  who  planted  the  bomb  at  Frank  Steunenberg's  yard  gate 
had  planted  other  bombs.  The  man  who  arranged  that  get 
away  that  night  had  arranged  for  a  get  away  before.  Every- 
thing surrounding  the  commission  of  the  crime,  the  manner 
in  which  he  undertook  to  accomplish  it,  the  plan  which  in- 
volved certainty  of  execution  and  the  absence  of  the  criminal 
when  the  deadly  explosion  should  occur,  everything  discloses 
beyond  a  question  the  trained  and  experienced  veteran  in 
crime.  Yet  they  would  have  you  believe  as  you  look  upon  the 


12 

awful  scene,  so  complete  with  proof  that  it  was  the  work  of 
one  long  trained,  that  this  was  his  first  crime,  that  he  had 
committed  no  others,  and  that  this  one  was  for  personal  re- 
venge. You  had  just  as  well  say  that  the  finished  devil  whom 
Shakespeare  created  and  called  lago  was  a  novice  at  his  work 
as  to  try  to  believe  that  the  man  who  made  and  planted  the 
bomb  at  Frank  Steunenberg's  gate  was  about  his  first  job. 

Not  Alone. 

It  seems  to  me  that  as  you  stand  at  Frank  Steunenberg's 
yard  gate,  shattered,  and  stained  with  his  own  blood,  and 
look  out  upon  the  devious  trails  of  Harry  Orchard  as  they 
are  now  revealed  by  the  evidence  in  this  case,  every  one  of 
them  leads  at  last  to  the  stairway  up  which  he  ran  the  day 
the  colored  boy  held  the  horse — every  one  leads  to  Denver. 
Starting  from  this  gate,  taking  his  back  trail,  crooked  and 
winding  though  it  is,  devious  as  crime,  but  after  all  certain 
as  fate,  it  brings  up  to  but  one  place.  We  go  to  Nampa,  then 
to  Boise,  then  to  Spokane,  then  to  Wardner,  back  to  Spokane, 
back  to  Seattle,  on  to  Portland,  back  to  Caldwell,  back  to 
Nampa,  then  to  Salt  Lake,  then  to  Denver.  The  first  letter 
taken  out  of  the  mail  after  the  crime  was  committed  is  from 
Denver.  Among  the  first  to  come  to  him  is  Sullivan,  the 
attorney,  from  Denver.  The  second  is  from  Spokane,  but  not 
until  connection  had  been  made  from  Denver.  The  index 
finger  of  fate  pointed  but  in  one  direction,  to  the  beautiful 
city  on  the  plateau.  Taking  another  trail  seven  years  before 
and  starting  in  the  Coeur  d'Alenes,  what  do  we  find?  We 
find  him  at  Wardner  the  day  Cheyne,  the  scab,  was  killed,  a 
member  of  the  mob  that  blew  up  the  mill.  We  track  him 
out  over  the  mountains,  tramping,  wandering  here  and  there, 
then  to  Cripple  Creek,  then  to  Denver.  Why  was  it  so?  How 


13 

did  it  happen  that  this  man  who  they  say  lived  on  his  small 
earnings  in  the  gambling  hell,  always  started  from  Denver 
when  he  went  forth  to  murder  and  always  returned  there 
when  the  bloody  deeds  were  finished  ?  Who  drew  him  thither, 
who  furnished  him  comfort  or  gave  him  encouragement  and 
protection?  Was  it  possible  that  he  was  operating  alone  or 
did  he  have  those  who  aided,  abetted,  encouraged  and  sus- 
tained him?  This  brings  us  to  the  law  of  conspiracy. 

Law  of  Conspiracy. 

It  has  been  said  that  Mr.  Hay  wood  is  not  guilty  notwith- 
standing Simpkins  or  Pettibone  or  Orchard  or  the  others  may 
be.  But  I  want  to  call  your  attention  a  moment  to  the  law 
under  which  the  defendant  is  being  tried.  But  I  want  to  say 
before  going  to  the  law  of  conspiracy,  in  fairness  to  the  de- 
fendant, that  he  cannot  be  made  unwittingly  a  member  of  '- 
conspiracy.  I  concede  that  to  start  with.  He  can  not  be 
made  a  member  of  a  combination  to  commit  crime  without 
his  knowledge  and  without  his  wilful  design  and  purpose  to 
join  it.  In  other  words,  if  Pettibone  and  Orchard  combined 
to  commit  this  crime  and  did  commit  it  under  the  feet  of 
Mr.  Haywood,  without  his  knowingly  and  wilfully  joining 
the  conspiracy,  he  is  entitled  to  his  acquittal.  He  can  not  be 
made  responsible  for  these  men's  acts  unless  he  knew  that 
such  a  combination  existed  and  wilfully  and  knowingly  joined 
it.  But  if  we  have  proven  a  conspiracy  in  this  case,  a  com- 
bination between  Mr.  Haywood,  Mr.  Pettibone  and  Mr. 
Orchard  and  Mr.  Moyer  and  Jack  Simpkins  to  commit  this 
crime,  if  you  find  they  were  in  a  combination,  either  express 
or  implied,  tacitly  moved  by  the  same  purpose  and  with  the 
same  design  and  the  same  common  object;  if  the  evidence  in 
this  case  shows  that  they  were  acting  in  concert,  led  on  by 


14 

the  same  purpose,  one  doing  one  thing  and  another  another, 
one  helping  here  and  another  there,  then  the  act  of  one  be- 
comes the  act  of  all.  After  that  combination  is  formed  and 
that  understanding  had;  after  the  agreement,  express  or  im- 
plied, exists ;  after  they  begin  to  act  together  knowingly,  from 
that  time  the  act  of  George  Pettibone  is  the  act  of  Mr.  Hay- 
wood  ;  from  that  time  the  act  of  Mr.  Moyer  is  the  act  of  Mr. 
Haywood ;  from  that  time  the  act  of  Harry  Orchard  is  the 
act  of  Mr.  Haywood ;  and  the  act  of  Jack  Simpkins  is  the 
act  of  Mr.  Haywood.  After  the  combination  and  agreement  is 
in  existence  and  they  have  become  wilfully  and  knowingly 
members  thereof,  understanding  the  crime  is  to  be  committed 
or  about  to  be  committed,  that  wrongs  are  to  be  effected, 
from  that  time  on  they  are  one,  they  are  partners,  the  act 
of  one  binds  all.  Now  upon  that  theory  the  State  is  proceed- 
ing to  prosecute  in  this  case.  Upon  that  theory  it  would  not 
make  any  difference,  when  this  crime  was  committed,  whether 
Mr.  Haywood  was  in  Denver  or  Caldwell.  Under  that  prin- 
ciple of  law  it  would  not  make  any  difference  whether  he  sent 
money  himself  or  whether  Pettibone  sent  it.  Under  that 
principle  which  binds  together  men  who  join  together  thus, 
the  act  of  Jack  Simpkins  was  the  act  of  Haywood  and  it 
wouldn't  make  any  difference  in  what  part  of  this  mundane 
sphere  Mr.  Haywood  was  resting  at  the  time  the  act  was  com- 
mitted. So  it  is  hardly  right  to  say,  and  it  is  not  entirely 
answering  the  argument  in  this  case  nor  the  presentation 
made  by  the  State  to  say,  "I  don't  care  about  Jack  Simpkins, 
let  him  go  overboard ;"  for  the  counsel  to  say,  "I  don't  care 
about  George  Pettibone,  we  will  take  care  of  him  later."  If 
the  theory  and  the  law  as  the  State  has  presented  it  here, 
and  to  be  given  to  you,  in  my  opinion,  by  the  court,  are  cor- 
rect and  the  facts  show  this  combination  to  exist,  they  can 


15 

not  in  candor  say,  "I  am  indifferent  to  Jack  Simpkins."  They 
can  not  in  candor  say  that  George  Pettibone's  unexplained 
telegram  amounts  to  nothing.  They  are  just  as  necessary  to 
be  explained  and  their  actions  to  be  explained  as  if  they 
came  from  the  hand  of  the  defendant  in  this  case. 

Then  the  question  is,  Have  there  been  any  facts  introduced 
here  to  show  that  condition  and  is  that  a  forrect  statement 
of  the  law?  Now,  gentlemen  of  the  jury,  it  is  not  the  conten- 
tion here,  never  has  been,  that  this  conspiracy  is  composed,  as 
the  very  able  counsel  for  the  defense  said,  of  forty  thousand 
members  of  the  Western  Federation  of  Miners.  It  is  not  the 
contention  that  any  considerable  number  of  this  organization 
ever  had  any  knowledge  of  the  specific  offense  here  or  any 
other  offense  which  has  been  referred  to  in  the  evidence  in 
this  case.  The  contention  of  the  State  is  that  some  four  or 
five  men  associating  themselves  together,  as  members  of  this 
organization,  for  a  number  of  years  entertained  the  idea  that 
one  way  in  which  to  advance  their  cause  and  one  way  in  which 
to  protect  their  interests  was  the  violation  of  law  in  different 
ways,  and  I  could  come  very  near  submitting  that  proposition 
upon  the  argument  of  the  eloquent  counsel  who  has  just  taken 
his  seat.  I  will  refer  to  that  in  a  few  moments,  however. 

Criminal  Organization. 

The  first  thing  we  want  to  determine  is  whether  or  not  this 
organization,  the  Western  Federation  of  Miners,  has  any- 
where a  criminal  force,  a  power  which  is  actuated  by  criminal 
motives.  And  in  order  to  satisfy  "you  to  start  with,  because  I 
will  refer  to  it  at  other  times,  T  want  to  call  your  attention  to 
two  particular  acts  which  are  undisputed  here,  which  will  sat- 
isfy you  in  a  moment  that  somewhere  in  this  great  labor  or- 
ganization, somewhere  in  the  Western  Federation  of  Miners, 


16 

is  a  power  which  controls  and  a  power  which  commits  crime. 
It  is  proven  in  this  case  just  as  clearly  as  the  fact  that  Frank 
Steunenberg  is  dead.  Look  at  the  29th  of  April,  1899.  Upon 
that  day  the  miner  came  out  of  the  mine.  He  came  at  the 
call  of  some  leader.  They  met  in  Union  Hall.  They  organized 
and  with  absolute  military  precision  they  marched  down  to 
the  train  and  took  possession  of  it.  They  took  possession  of 
those  who  were  running  it  and  compelled  them  to  start  upon 
the  journey.  They  put  masks  upon  their  faces  and  arms  upon 
their  shoulders.  They  went  down  to  Gem,  stopped,  and  again 
went  into  the  Union  Hall.  They  got  some  more  arms  and 
some  more  men.  They  backed  up  to  the  powder  house  and 
put  on  board  the  deadly  instruments  of  murder.  Arms  were 
not  enough.  They  must  take  that  which  a  certain  school  of 
philosophers  in  this  country  think  more  of  than  they  do  the 
Bible,  and  that  is  dynamite.  They  backed  up  there  and  took 
upon  this  excursion  train  a  lot  of  dynamite  and  they  came 
down  to  Gem  and  were  not  satisfied  and  they  backed  up  and 
took  some  more.  They  moved  down  to  Wardner  and  again 
with  absolute  military  precision,  under  the  guidance  and  di- 
rection of  some  leaders,  they  got  off  the  train,  formed  in  bat- 
tle array,  the  men  with  the  long  guns  in  front  and  the  men 
with  the  short  guns  behind,  and  marched  down  to  the  Bunker 
Hill  &  Sullivan  mine,  blew  up  half  a  million  dollars  worth 
of  property  and  killed  and  murdered  Jim  Cheyne.  In  open 
defiance  of  law,  with  absolute  contempt  for  the  State,  they 
go  upon  this  expedition,  call  out  all  their  men,  and  for  no 
other  purpose,  as  you  know,  than  the  violation  of  law  and 
the  commission  of  the  most  aggravated  crimes.  Is  there  any 
question  about  it?  Is  Mr.  Orchard  the  only  man  who  testifies 
to  it?  If  there  was  any  question  about,  if  it  could  be  disputed 
or  explained,  where  are  the  five  hundred  or  the  thousand  men, 


17 

those  loyal  members  of  the  Western  Federation  they  talk 
about,  who  dare  not  come  here  and  tell  you  a  single  word  in 
regard  to  it?  Where  is  Paul  Corcoran,  who  came  in  and  out 
of  this  court  room,  who  was  two  years  in  the  penitentiary  and 
who  ought  to  be  there  now?  It  was  a  criminal  expedition 
gotten  up  for  the  purpose  of  the  violation  of  law  and  the  com- 
mission of  murder.  Who  got  it  up?  Who  directed  it?  Where 
is  the  criminal  force  which  led  it?  Was  it  an  accident?  Too 
much  precision,  too  much  certainty,  the  aim  was  too  deadly, 
the  result  was  too  great.  They  marched  back  and  went  into 
the  mines,  says  the  eloquent  counsel.  Why  did  they  march 
back  home  and  go  into  the  mines?  Because  they  came  to  the 
conclusion,  apparently,  that  there  was  no  law  in  Idaho  and 
that  they  could  take  human  life  and  yet  be  perfectly  safe  in 
doing  so.  Criminal  organization !  I  know  that  a  man  should 
be  careful  when  he  is  talking  about  men  who  work  down  in 
the  mines.  But  we  are  discussing  facts  in  this  case.  It  is  an 
unpleasant  duty  sometimes  to  deal  with  facts,  but  it  is  the 
only  thing  we  can  do  when  we  are  trying  a  law  suit.  Another 
instance  :  They  say  no  criminal  organization.  That  was  seven 
years  ago.  Since  you  have  been  called  upon  this  jury,  since 
Mr.  Darrow  made  his  opening  statement  in  which  he  threw 
Jack  Simpkins  overboard,  this  man  who  was  at  Caldwell  un- 
der an  assumed  name  with  this  man  who  has  been  painted  in 
all  kinds  of  colors,  Harry  Orchard — a  veritable  devil,  and  I 
agree  with  them — Jack  Simpkins  who  was  hibernating  with 
Mr.  Orchard  is  made  a  high  official  of  the  Western  Federation 
of  Miners.  When  the  news  went  forth  he  fled  from  justice, 
is  a  fugitive  in  hiding  today,  and  this  man  who  is  a  self-con- 
fessed criminal  before  the  community  has  been  re-elected  and 
a  crown  of  favor  put  upon  his  head  in  open  defiance  of  every 
decent  sentiment  which  ought  to  control  a  labor  organization. 


18 

Is  it  a  criminal  organization  that  commits  crime  as  they  did 
on  the  29th  day  of  April?  Is  it  a  criminal  organization  that 
protects  and  harbors  criminals  ?  Is  it  a  criminal  organization 
that  has  as  its  leading  officers  fugitives  from  justice?  There 
can  be  no  question  in  the  mind  of  any  man  but  that  some- 
where in  this  organization,  somewhere,  is  a  criminal  force 
and  a  criminal  power  which  defies  law,  disrespects  human  life 
and  believes  in  the  rule  of  might  and  nothing  more. 

Now  my  friend,  who  grows  a  thousand  times  more  eloquent 
than  I  ever  expect  to,  says  that  we  have  no  apology  to  make, 
whatever  else  we  do,  for  anything  that  the  Western  Federa- 
tion of  Miners  has  ever  done.  Well,  whether  the  defendant 
here  is  guilty  or  not,  it  strikes  me  that  there  are  some  things 
which  have  been  done  that  ought  to  be  apologized  for,  and 
that  the  statement  of  such  a  proposition  is  again  a  defiance  of 
public  sentiment,  public  decency  and  the  laws  of  the  State. 
Apologize!  Why  not?  Jim  Cheyne  was  murdered.  Oh,  yes, 
but  that  was  justifiable — he  was  a  scab.  He  was  living  upon 
the  price  which  the  union  labor  men  had  raised  for  him.  Jus- 
tifiable!  The  Bunker  Hill  &  Sullivan  mill  was  blown  up.  Oh, 
yes,  but  it  was  employing  non-union  men — ought  to  have  been 
done.  Why,  he  says,  if  you  can  get  a  thousand  men  together 
to  go  and  do  that  thing  then  it  is  proof  positive  that  it  ought 
to  be  done.  That  may  be  so  in  some  places,  but  it  is  not  so  in 
Idaho.  There  is  only  one  rule  here,  and  that  is  whether  you 
are  a  mine  owner,  a  scab  or  a  union  man,  you  are  entitled  to 
the  protection  of  the  law  and  to  the  preservation  of  your 
property  and  the  protection  of  your  life.  All  the  way  through 
this  case,  from  the  inception  to  the  close,  the  testimony  and 
the  argument  combined,  is  the  proposition  that  if  he  was  a 
scab,  if  he  was  a  non-union  man,  like  old  man  Stuart  and  the 
fourteen  poor  fellows  who  were  sent  into  eternity  on  the  6th 


19 

of  June,  there  is  the  subtle  spirit  of  justification  for  it  all.  If 
the  doctrine  which  has  been  argued  here  is  true,  if  such  is 
to  be  taught,  I  am  not  surprised  that  these  men  commit  mur- 
der. 

Harry  Orchard. 

Gentlemen  of  the  jury,  the  great  question  in  this  case  is,  we 
admit  it,  Has  Harry  Orchard  told  the  truth  or  any  part  of 
the  truth  ?  They  have  wanted  to  know  for  some  time  what  I 
think  of  Mr.  Orchard.  I  may  not  be  able  to  tell  you  in  one 
evening,  but  I  will  kind  of  give  you  an  idea  before  I  get 
through.  Perhaps  the  most  amusing  feature  of  the  Orchard 
discussion  is  the  different  views  with  which  he  presents  him- 
self to  the  defense,  the  different  ideas  which  the  learned  coun- 
sel have  of  Orchard.  It  may  not  be  instructive  as  a  matter  of 
evidence,  but  still  I  think  it  throws  some  light  upon  the  mat- 
ter and  it  is  certainly  instructive  to  study  the  different  views 
which  they  have  of  Orchard.  In  the  first  place  they  say  he 
was  a  homicidal  maniac,  going  here  and  there,  hither  and 
thither,  killing  everybody  he  could,  bent  upon  murder,  because 
of  a  lesion  in  his  brain,  because  he  was  a  maniac  thirsting  for 
blood.  That  is  the  first  view  which  is  presented  by  the  first 
counsel  who  opened  this  case  for  the  defense.  He  got  about 
half  way  through  his  argument  and  he  undoubtedly  satisfied 
you  beyond  a  question  that  he  was  not  a  homicidal  maniac  at 
all,  that  he  never  committed  but  one  crime  in  his  life  so  far  as 
murder  is  concerned  and  that  was  the  killing  of  Frank  Steun- 
enberg  and  for  private  reasons.  And  then  he  got  to  thinking 
over  the  matter  again  and  he  saw  perhaps  that  there  was 
some  inconsistency  about  that  and  he  says,  "I  will  make  a 
Pinkerton  out  of  him;"  and  he  closed  this  case  with  the  in- 
timation that  he  was  a  Pinkerton  and  inveigled  Jack  Simpkins 


20 

off  the  train  at  Caldwell.     I  wish  he  would  inveigle  him  back. 

Mr.  Darrow :    We  will  consider  that. 

Mr.  Borah :  There  is  just  one  thing  I  would  say  with  refer- 
ence to  Orchard's  insanity.  I  don't  believe  that  Mr.  Richard- 
son demonstrated  that  on  cross-examination.  It  is  certainly 
no  compliment  to  one  of  the  greatest  lawyers  in  the  West 
that  this  maniac  did  not  disclose  any  of  his  weakness  under 
a  week's  cross-examination.  But  there  is  another  peculiarity 
about  this  homicidal  maniac.  As  the  greatest  reader  of  the 
human  heart  once  said,  "There  must  be  method  in  his  mad- 
ness." In  all  his  hurrying  and  scurrying  here  and  there,  kill- 
ing where  he  would  and  where  he  could,  he  always  hit  upon 
the  enemies  of  the  Western  Federation  of  Miners.  He  never 
killed  a  man  nor  attempted  to  kill  a  man  who  doesn't  come 
under  the  ban  according  to  the  language  which  is  printed  in 
the  Western  Federation  magazine.  Maniac !  Entirely  too 
much  method  there. 

Now,  my  friend  who  has  just  closed  and  whom  I  listened 
to  with  so  much  interest,  perfectly  spellbound,  said  to  you 
yesterday  in  one  of  his  flights  of  humor  or  fancy  that  Mr. 
Orchard  had  purchased  his  freedom  and  had  received  his  pay 
in  advance. 

Mr.  Darrow :    His  life,  I  said. 

Mr.  Borah :  His  life.  I  am  glad  you  concede  we  are  going 
to  keep  him  in  the  penitentiary.  And  that  if  he  hadn't  made 
his  confession  and  purchased  his  life  that  the  grass  would 
be  growing  over  him  and  the  daisies  blooming  over  his  grave. 
You  know  that  is  not  true.  If  he  had  not  confessed  and  did 
what  he  did  Fred  Miller  would  be  earning  his  fifteen  hundred 
dollars.  The  Western  Federation  of  Miners  would  be  here 
clearing  Harry  Orchard,  and  you  would  never  have  seen  Billy 
Easterly  nor  Bill  Davis  nor  anybody  else  appearing  here 


21 

against  him.  They  would  have  been  here  and  the  eloquent 
gentleman  from  Chicago  would  have  demonstrated  to  you 
with  absolute  certainty  that  he  could  not  have  killed  Gov- 
ernor Steunenberg  because  he  was  down  at  the  Saratoga  hotel 
when  the  bomb  went  off — just  as  Mr.  Riley  was  too  close  to 
the  bomb  in  San  Francisco  to  admit  of  its  going  off.  And 
instead  of  hearing  him  argue  upon  the  leader  of  the  Western 
Federation  of  Miners  you  would  have  had  a  chance  to  hear 
him  upon  Harry  Orchard,  the  man  of  unblemished  character,, 
as  was  said  in  that  interesting  letter  by  the  firm  of  Richardson 
&  Hawkins  in  November  of  1904. 

Again,  who  is  this  awful  monster?  They  say  that  my 
friend  Hawley  has  Orcharditis.  We  have  had  a  touch  of  it 
since  February  18,  1906,  but  they  had  Orcharditis  from  April 
29,  1899,  until  February  18,  1906.  We  are  keeping  him  in 
the  penitentiary  tied  up.  They  had  him  going  here  and  there, 
protecting  the  body  of  Mr.  Moyer,  the  friend  of  Pettibone,  his 
banker,  associating  with  Bill  Easterly,  the  friend  of  Davis, 
here  and  there — one  of  them,  a  delegate  to  their  convention, 
on  the  Ways  and  Means  Committee.  The  Orcharditis  which 
we  got  we  got  out  of  the  heart  of  the  Western  Federation  of 
Miners.  This  man  with  twenty  murders  at  his  belt — this 
monster,  as  we  agree,  the  greatest  criminal  of  the  twentieth 
century — one  of  the  leading  members  of  the  Western  Federa- 
tion so  far  as  non-officers  are  concerned,  and  yet  they  say  it  is 
not  a  criminal  organization. 

But  another  thing,  perhaps  the  most  awful  thing  that  has 
occurred  in  this  case,  and  the  one  which  Mr.  Darrow  pointed 
out  with  all  the  pathos  and  eloquence  at  his'  command,  is  the 
fact  that  this  man  who  had  killed  fifteen  or  twenty  men  came 
on  the  witness  stand  and  told  you  his  true  name.  When  we 
put  Orchard  on  the  stand  we  contented  ourselves  with  show- 


22 

ing"  that  he  had  committed  fifteen  or  twenty  murders.  Mr. 
Richardson  took  him  up  on  cross-examination  and  showed 
that  he  had  stolen  a  sheep.  We  did  not  think  it  would  add 
anything  to  his  degredation  to  show  a  matter  of  that  kind, 
Then  he  showed  that  he  underweighed  cheese ;  then  he  showed 
that  he  ran  away  with  another's  man's  wife — wanted  to  pre- 
pare him  for  New  York  society.  When  we  got  through  with 
him  we  supposed  him  to  be  one  of  the  greatest  criminals  who 
ever  lived.  But,  they  say,  "A  greater  crime  still  is  that  he 
came  upon  the  witness  stand  and  told  his  true  name — don't 
forget  his  little  daughter."  I  do  pity  his  little  daughter  and 
his  wife  or  anybody  else  who  bears  his  name.  But  who  put 
into  this  record  the  name  of  that  child? 

Mr.  Darrow:    You  did. 

Mr.  Richardson:  Sure,  under  direct  examination,  the  first 
thing  you  did. 

Mr.  Borah :  I  beg  your  pardon,  we  asked  Mr.  Orchard  his 
name,  but  the  man  who  put  into  this  record  the  name  of  this 
child  was  the  astute  cross-examiner,  Mr.  Richardson.  If  her 
name  is  to  go  down  in  infamy,  the  fact  that  he  had  a  daughter, 
if  her  given  name  be  recorded  where  the  man  who  may  some 
time  love  her  will  have  an  opportunity  to  know  of  her  shame 
and  read  of  her  curse,  it  is  not  because  the  State  of  Idaho  put 
her  name  there,  but  because  the  defense  did. 

Mr.  Darrow :    He  gave  his  residence  and  told  his  name. 

Mr.  Borah :    Exactly. 

Mr.  Darrow:    Wouldn't  they  know  who  his  daughter  was? 

Mr.  Borah:  Yes,  but  you  people  must  record  it  here — no 
one  else  did. 

Mr.  Darrow :    Oh,  no,  we  never  knew  his  name  before. 

The  Court:     Go  on,  Mr.  Borah. 

Mr.  Borah:     Did  not  know  his  name,  did  not  know  who 


23 

he  was?  Why,  they  knew  his  uncle,  his  aunts,  his  great  uncle, 
his  grandfather,  his  brother,  their  boyish  quarrels,  and  every- 
body else  who  died  of  or  was  supposed  to  be  affected  by  in- 
sanity within  four  generations.  Didn't  know  his  name  or 
where  he  lived?  What  did  you  have  Pettibone  here  for?  You 
showed  that  Pettibone  had  told  him  or  he  had  told  Pettibone 
all  about  their  early  careers. 

Mr.  Darrow  :    Oh,  no. 

Mr.  Borah :    Read  your  record  again  when  you  get  time. 

Mr.  Darrow :     No,  we  don't  need  to. 

Mr.  Borah:  Let  us. proceed  further:  Harry  Orchard  ap- 
pears upon  the  scene  for  the  first  time,  so  far  as  the  direct 
evidence  in  this  case  is  concerned,  upon  the  29th  of  April,  1899. 
There  are  other  features  of  his  life  which  I  am  going  to  dis- 
cuss later  but  I  want  to  commence  there  at  the  present  time, 
on  the  29th  of  April,  at  the  time  of  this  offense  which  I  have 
been  discussing.  Harry  Orchard  was  undoubtedly  in  that 
crowd.  He  appeared  there  and,  as  we  admit,  already  a  crim- 
inal, already  a  man  given  to  crime,  already  one  who  would  be 
quick  to  seize  an  opportunity  to  commit  a  crime,  one  who,  in 
"my  judgment,  was  in  all  probability  a  criminal  by  instinct,  a 
criminal  from  the  time  he  was  old  enough  to  know  what  law 
was  and  how  to  violate  it.  So  he  came  upon  the  scene  on  the 
29th  of  April,  1899,  and  as  he  says,  went  down  upon  the  train 
and  was  one  of  the  men  who  touched  off  the  fuse.  There 
seems  to  be  a  spirit  of  jealousy  upon  their  part;  they  do  not 
want  to  give  credit  for  that  to  such  an  obscure  member  of 
the  Federation,  but  there  can  be  no  doubt  in  the  mind  of  any 
one  that  Orchard  was  there.  They  had  the  men  here  by  whom 
they  could  prove — Mr.  Corcoran  and  others — what  happened 
at  that  hall.  Harry  Orchard  testified  to  it  and  they  could  have 
testified  whether  it  was  true  or  untrue,  but  they  did  not  see 


24 

fit  to  dispute  it.  So  we  are  satisfied  that  he  went  down  there 
the  29th  of  April,  bent  on  crime,  and  mixed  with  the  men 
who  were  committing  crime  that  day. 

Those  who  talk  to  you  about  the  fact  that  Harry  Orchard 
became  acquainted  rather  quickly  down  in  Cripple  Creek, 
that  his  association  down  there  with  reference  to  the  Vindica- 
tor and  the  commission  of  those  other  crimes  was  such  as 
to  preclude  the  idea  that  they  would  employ  a  man  who  was 
a  stranger  to  them — want  to  bear  in  mind  that  they  knew  him 
from  the  act  of  April  29,  1899.  W.  F.  Davis  was  undoubtedly 
in  that  mob.  When  you  listened  to  his  cross-examination 
you  knew  he  was  concealing  something,  that  he  was  not  tell- 
ing all  he  knew.  A  train  went  through  Gem ;  he  was  stand- 
ing about;  that  train  had  three  or  four  hundred  men  on  it; 
they  were  masked ;  they  were  armed,  but  he  paid  no  attention 
to  it,  did  not  know  anything  about  it,  as  to  where  it  was  go- 
ing; was  not  concerned  about  it,  and  would  lead  you  to  believe 
he  did  not  know.  Now,  gentlemen,  the  one  thing  which  kept 
Davis  from  knowing  was  the  fact  that  something  happened 
after  they  got  to  Wardner,  something  that  is  not  barred  by 
the  statute  of  limitations.  Murder  does  not  outlaw  in  this" 
State.  I  asked  Davis  if  he  was  interested  in  that  train,  or  if 
it  was  not  a  rather  interesting  day.  "Well,"  he  said,  "it  is 
owing  to  what  you  call  an  interesting  day.  I  did  not  see  any- 
thing wrong  with  it — nothing  to  interest  me,"  or  words  to 
that  effect.  And  this  man  states  to  you  that  notwithstanding 
the  fact  that  he  witnessed  that  scene  he  did  not  know  where 
that  train  was  going  nor  what  they  were  up  to,  nor  did  he 
make  any  inquiries  in  regard  to  it.  He  is  one  of  the  parties 
who  says  that  he  was  not  there,  though  Orchard  testifies  he 
was.  But  Orchard  tells  you  what  happened  at  Burke,  the 
words  which  were  spoken,  who  were  present,  what  was  done, 


25 

and  described  the  scene  from  beginning  to  end.  Doctor  Allan! 
said  he  as  there,  that  he  saw  him  going  and  saw  him  coming 
back  with  the  men  who  were  on  the  train,  and  in  view  of  the 
fact  that  they  have  the  names  of  six  hundred  men  who  know 
all  about  the  matter  and  did  not  dispute  his  presence,  it  must 
be  conclusive  to  your  mind  that  Mr.  Orchard  was  there,  and 
therefore  commenced  his  career  of  crime  upon  the  29th  day  of 
April,  1899,  so  far  as  this  organization  is  concerned.  He  im- 
mediately enters  into  the  confidence  of  his  friends  and  pre- 
pares for  his  future  work.  He  is  at  home  among  men  who 
riot  in  bloodshed  and  glory  in  the  defiance  of  law. 

Test  of  Truth. 

Let  us  see  if  there  are  some  tests  of  truth  with  reference  to 
witnesses  upon  the  stand  which  apply  to  Orchard.  In  the  first 
place,  a  man  may  go  upon  the  witness  stand  and  testify  to  a 
simple  proposition.  He  may  say  that  he  saw  John  Jones  shoot 
John  Smith  at  the  corner  of  Eighth  and  Main  streets,  and  it 
will  be  very  difficult  to  break  him  upon  that  proposition.  It 
is  very  difficult  to  cross  him  so  as  to  show  it  is  false,  if  it  is 
false,  because  it  is  a  very  simple  proposition.  A  man  may  say, 
as  Davis  said,  that  he  was  not  on  the  train  and  he  may  remain 
with  the  declaration,  but  when  you  take  a  witness  and  put  him 
upon  the  witness  stand  and  take  him  through  a  .period  of  his 
life  extending  over  four  or  five  years,  meeting  an  individual 
here,  an  individual  there,  committing  a  crime  here  and  another 
there,  coming  in  contact  with  this  condition  and  that  condi- 
tion, traveling  upon  the  train,  giving  the  entire  detail  of  his 
life  and  with  the  circumstantiaJ  certainty  which  Orchard  did, 
that  is  one  of  the  best  tests  of  the  truthfulness  of  a  witness. 
I  submit  that  it  would  be  impossible  for  a  man  to  run  the 
gauntlet  of  four  years'  of  active  falsehood,  coming  in  contact 


26 

as  he  did  with  so  many  different  people,  circumstances  and 
conditions,  without  being  detected  by  the  cross-examination 
of  so  adroit  a  cross-examiner  as  Mr.  Richardson.  That  is  the 
first  test  of  Orchard's  truthfulness.  There  is  another  test:  I 
want  you  to  bear  in  mind  that  there  is  a  brand  of  criminality 
and  method  of  crimes  which  seem  to  belong  almost  exclusive- 
ly to  Harry  Orchard.  You  can  pretty  nearly  trace  him  from 
the  death  of  Jim  Cheyne  and  the  blowing  up  of  the  Bunker 
Hill  and  Sullivan  mill  to  the  yard  gate  of  Frank  Steunenberg 
seven  years  afterwards  by  the  nature  of  his  crimes  and  the 
manner  in  which  he  committed  them.  Yard  gates  with 
bombs;  door  steps  with  bombs;  a  bomb  here,  a  bomb  there. 
There  is  a  brand  for  the  way  in  which  he  accomplished  his 
crimes  by  which,  as  I  said  a  few  minutes  ago,  if  you  look  out 
from  the  gate  of  Frank  Steunenberg,  you  can  almost  track 
him  back  over  his  entire  career.  And  that  is  a  fact  you  are 
entitled  to  take  into  consideration  when  you  are  weighing  the 
question  of  whether  he  testified  to  the  truth  in  this  cause. 

Orchard's  Religion. 

One  thing  more  before  going  to  the  details  of  the  evidence, 
and  I  might  as  well  cover  it  now  as  later  on.  Much  has  been 
said  here  in  mockery  and  derision  of  Orchard's  profession  of 
religion.  I  suspect  it  does  not  greatly  matter  to  you  so  far 
as  this  cause  is  concerned  whether  he  has  or  has  not  accepted 
the  teachings  of  Christianity.  I  suspect  that  you  will  accept 
or  reject  his  testimony  in  accordance  with  the  rules  which 
ordinarily  obtain  in  courts  of  law;  that  you  will  measure  its 
worth  in  proportion  as  it  is  corroborated  by  other  testimony, 
in  proportion  as  it  commands  the  judgment  and  convinces 
the  minds  of  reasonable  men.  But  nothwithstanding  this,  I 
want  to  call  your  attention  to  the  fact  that  this  question  of  his 


27 

religioij  or  non-religion  was  not  a  matter  which  the  State 
imposed  upon  this  jury  in  any  way,  shape  or  form.  They  say 
it  was  gotten  up  by  Mr.  McParland  for  its  effect  upon  the 
jury  and  to  brace  him  up  as  a  witness  before  you.  You  know 
that  there  was  no  intimation  made  of  such  a  thing  by  the 
State  upon  its  direct  examination.  It  was  not  flaunted  before 
you  nor  paraded  here  by  any  act  of  the  State,  but  Mr.  Richard- 
son saw  fit,  having  been  informed,  it  appears,  by  a  former 
member  of  the  Western  Federation  of  Miners — that  is,  accord- 
ing to  his  statement — to  show  that  he  had  accepted  the  teach- 
ings of  Christianity. 

Mr.  Darrow  testified  in  this  connection  with  reference  to 
his  religious  views.  He  was  generous  enough  to  give  us  a  dis- 
course on  religion,  incident  to  a  discussion  of  the  evidence 
in  this  case.  I  hardly  think  he  is  an  expert  on  the  subject. 
Neither  am  I,  so  I  will  venture  a  suggestion,  assuming  that 
we  will  likely  be  considered  by  this  jury  of  equal  moment  as 
witnesses.  His  statement  recalls  an  experience  which  was 
mine  when  a  small  boy.  I  was  raised  by  Presbyterian  parents. 
The  religious  strain  of  Calvin  was  present  in  our  household. 
About  the  time  I  arrived  at  the  age  when  every  boy  knows 
just  how  the  world  was  made  and  how  man  accidentally  ar- 
rived upon  earth,  I  secured  from  some  source  a  little  volume 
of  Colonel  Ingersoll's.  It  was  the  "Mistakes  of  Moses."  I 
was  perfectly  fascinated  with  the  story.  I  soon  found  out  that 
this  man  of  whom  I  had  heard  so  much  at  family  prayers  was 
a  worse  man  than  Darrow's  Orchard.  He  had  killed  an  Egyp- 
tian and  hidden  him  in  the  sand.  He  had  done  a  great  many 
other  things  unnecessary  to  mention  here — I  was  perfectly 
fascinated  with  the  story.  I  was  so  glad  to  find  these  saints 
were  human.  One  day  while  sitting  under  a  tree  reading  when 
I  ought  to  have  been  pulling  the  weeds  out  of  the  corn,  father 


28 

came  along  and  asked  what  I  was  reading.  I  closed  the  book 
and  being  in  rather  a  close  place,  like  Pettibone,  I  concluded 
I  would  keep  still,  so  I  answered  not.  Father,  thinking  that 
my  silence  under  such  circumstances  was  an  admission  of 
guilt,  reached  over,  took  possession  of  the  book,  and  I  never 
read  any  more  out  of  that  volume.  Some  other  things  hap- 
pened which  it  is  also  unnecessary  to  mention.  I  went  my 
way  disconsolate.  I  had  no  Ingersol  and  the  intellectual 
heavens  were  without  a  star.  Finally  I  secured  the  life  of 
Napoleon  Bonaparte  and  read  it.  I  came  to  the  conclusion 
that  Napoleon  was  a  greater  man  than  Ingersol — the  great- 
est genius  in  war  or  statesmanship  that  ever  lived.  I  came 
to  the  history  of  his  Egyptian  campaign.  I  read  how  he  took 
with  him  on  that  trip  from  Paris  a  number  of  philosophers, 
savants  from  the  salons  of  Paris — learned  men,  wise  men — 
men  who  were  teaching  in  that  day,  as  some  would  vainly 
teach  now,  that  there  is  nothing  higher  or  more  divine  than 
the  impulses  and  emotions  of  the  human  heart,  nothing  great- 
er or  more  godlike  than  the  human  intellect;  men  who  taught 
that  there  was  no  difference,  as  my  eloquent  friend  now  says, 
between  the  unlettered  barbarian  muttering  his  unmeaning 
words  at  the  foot  of  a  black  idol  and  the  jubilant  soul  looking 
up  to  the  God  on  -Calvary,  asking  for  guidance  and  direction. 
I  read  how,  one  night,  these  philosophers  sat  upon  the  deck 
of  the  ship  and  discussed  in  their  puny  way  the  mistakes  of 
the  Infinite,  how  they  finally  concluded  there  was  no  such 
thing  as  religion,  no  God,  nothing  higher  than  man.  At  last 
they  turned  to  Napoleon  for  an  opinion,  who,  pointing  to  the 
firmament  above,  said :  "Tell  me  who  made  that  firmament 
and  I  will  then  discuss  this  matter  with  you."  This  was 
a  revelation  to  me.  Skepticism  and  agnosticism  were  things 
of  the  past.  And  I  say  to  you  tonight  that  I  am  not  a  religion- 


29 

ist,  neither  am  I  a  hypocrite,  but  it  is  too  late  in  this,  the  morn- 
ing of  the  twentieth  century,  to  write  upon  the  divine  brow 
of  the  One  who  died  on  Calvary,  "impostor ;"  too  late  to  write 
above  that  bowed  head,  "false  prophet."  While  some  may 
not  know,  millions  do  know  that  their  Redeemer  liveth.  It  is 
too  late  to  argue  against  the  teachings  of  Him  who  said,  "This 
day  thou  shalt  be  with  me  in  paradise." 

Orchard  may  not  have  religion..  I  do  not  know,  but  I  do 
know  that  twenty  -centuries  of  Christian  civilization,  I  do 
know  that  thousands  and  thousands  of  the  best  men  and  wo- 
men who  ever  walked  upon  this  earth  tell  us  and  teach  us  that 
there  is  a  divine  power  which  can  reform  men's  brains,  reform 
and  make  better  men's  hearts,  which  can  give  the  power  to 
do  that  which  they  did  not  have  the  courage  to  do  before. 
Even  Orchard's  story,  then,  is  not  so  strange.  After  all,  noth- 
ing could  be  more  natural,  more  in  harmony  with  the  never 
finished  story  of  crime  than  the  very  thing  Orchard  tells  you 
took  place.  In  our  strength  and  pride  we  are  given  over  to 
mockery  and  derision;  in  the  hour  of  success  we  are  blas- 
phemers and  declare  as  the  fool  declared  that  there  is  no  God. 
But  in  the  hour  we  are  cast  down  it  is  altogether  different.  In 
the  night  of  despair,  when  the  stars  of  hope  are  dead,  every 
sinner  of  us,  the  bravest  and  the  frailest,  turn  at  last  to  that 
old  book  which  our  mothers  loved.  It  is  the  only  book  on 
earth  when  we  are  face  to  face  with  the  trouble  which  hu- 
man aid  can  not  alleviate.  When  some  great  sorrow  presses 
us  to  earth  and  we  are  locked  in  with  our  own  sufferings,  how 
quickly  memory  carries  back  over  the  years  and  we  are  land- 
ed again  at  the  old  homestead.  In  the  twilight  sits  a  saintly 
form,  bent  and  gray,  and  on  her  lap  rests  the  book — it  is 
mother  and  her  Bible.  There  is  the  picture,  memory  will 
never  lose  it,  it  is  the  anchor  of  the  moral  world.  Every  ship- 


30 

wrecked  mariner  upon  the  ocean  of  life  prays  at  last  to  anchor 
there — all  the  mockery  and  blasphemy  and  scorn  of  atheism 
can  not  cloud  its  beauty.  God  never  intended  it  should  be 
destroyed.  He  never  intended  man  should  become  vile  enough 
and  fiendish  enough  to  wholly  forget  its  divine  influence.  And 
if  Orchard,  poor,  miserable  wretch,  his  hands  red  with  the 
blood  of  more  than  a  score  of  innocent  men,  his  soul  steeped 
in  the  very  uumes  of  hell — if  he  saw  that  picture  and  was 
drawn  to  it  again  he  simply  saw  what  -every  criminal  sees 
when  he  stands  looking  out  from  behind  the  prison  bars  at 
the  near  end  of  life.  Oh,  I  learned  long  ago  not  to  mock  at 
any  man's  religion.  It  is  at  last  a  secret  between  himself  and 
his  God. 

But,  says  Mr.  Darrow,  he  is  now  playing  the  greatest  game 
he  ever  played  in  his  life ;  he  is  playing  the  life  of  Mr.  Hay- 
wood  for  his  own ;  that  his  testimony  is  untrustworthy  for 
that  reason.  Gentlemen  of  the  jury,  I  do  not  know  what  you 
will  do  with  Mr.  Haywood ;  I  do  not  know  what  your  verdict 
will  be  in  this  case ;  no  man  will  know  until  it  is  rendered  in 
this  court  room.  You  may  return  him  to  the  city  of  Denver, 
you  may  turn  him  loose  to  go  back  to  the  State  of  Colorado  to 
take  his  place  at  the  head  of  this  great  organization.  But  the 
man  who  planted  the  bomb  at  Frank  Steunenberg's  gate  and 
comes  into  this  court  and  swears  to  it  will  pay  the  forfeit  of 
his  crime.  They  talk  of  promises.  We  are  not  asking  for 
vicarious  atonements.  Fighting  Haywood  for  Harry  Orchard? 
Trading  in  blood?  You  may  turn  him  loose,  but  you  will 
never  get  twelve  men  in  the  State  of  Idaho  who  will  turn 
Harry  Orchard  loose  and  you  will  never  find  a  man  in  this 
State  who  will,  as  Governor,  turn  him  loose.  And  I  trust  that 
if  ever  I  compromise  with  the  man  who  planted  that  bomb  at 
Steunenberg's  gate  that  the  great  God  will  wither  my  right 


31 

arm  until  it  falls  from  its  socket.  We  are  only  using  him  for 
the  very  purpose  which  we  are  entitled  to  use  him,  to  bring 
other  guilty  men  to  punishment.  But  there  is  no  comprom- 
ise, and  there  will  not  be ;  no  immunity,  and  there  will  not 
be.  We  know  there  is  one  man  guilty  of  murder,  and  you  will 
determine  whether  there  is  more  or  not.  There  is  no  evidence 
here  that  Harry  Orchard  has  been  promised  immunity,  and  the 
manhood  and  integrity  of  this  State  is  behind  the  fact  that 
he  will  never  get  it.  Why  should  we  compromise  with  him 
or  anybody  else?  He  says  he  is  ready  to  meet  his  God.  The 
law  has  been  violated  and  a  man  murdered.  He  certainly  did 
it.  But  again,  I  do  not  want  him  turned  loose  for  other  reasons. 
He  might  inveigle  Jack  Simpkins  off  his  train  again ;  he  might 
go  down  there  and  get  in  company  with  Bill  Easterly  again ; 
he  might  go  to  running  with  the  Western  Federation  of 
Miners  again.  There  is  only  one  place  for  that  man  and  that 
is  in  the  penitentiary  until  the  time  comes  for  him  to  go 
hence.  And  I  want  to  say  to  you  that  the  man  who  intimates 
that  I  would  compromise  with  Harry  Orchard  does  not  un- 
derstand the  kind  of  blood  that  circulates  in  my  body.  He 

does  not  know  the  love  I  bore  the  dead. 

\ 

Accomplice — Corroboration. 

Harry  Orchard  is  an  accomplice  and  his  testimony  must 
be  corroborated.  It  does  not  make  any  difference  how  thor- 
oughly you  are  convinced  of  its  truthfulness,  before  the  court 
will  permit  you  to  find  a  verdict  of  guilty  it  must  be  corrob- 
orated. I  want  to  discuss  with  you  a  few  minutes,  before  I  ask 
the  court  to  close  for  tonight,  the  question  of  the  corroboration 
of  the  testimony  of  an  accomplice.  In  the  first  place,  you  must 
be  satisfied  he  is  telling  the  truth  before,  as  a  practical  propo- 
sition, the  question  of  the  corroboration  arises  at  all. 


32 

There  are  two  kinds  of  corroboration :  First,  there  is  the 
corroboration  which  satisfies  you  of  the  truthfulness  of  the 
witness's  story  itself,  and  a  large  part  of  this  corroboration 
has  been  of  that  nature.  Second,  there  is  the  other  kind  of 
corroboration  which  is  necessary  under  the  statute  and. that 
is  the  corroboration  which  connects  this  defendant  or  tends 
to  connect  the  defendant  with  the  crime. 

In  considering  the  corroborative  evidence  in  this  case  you 
will  be  under  the  necessity  of  separating  these  two  classes  of 
corroborative  evidence  in  order  to  arrive  intelligently  at  the 
determination  of  whether  or  not  the  evidence  we  have  been 
introducing  under  all  circumstances  is  material.  Take,  for 
instance,  the  statement  of  Miss  Peabody.  We  do  not  contend 
that  it  was  such  as  of  itself  would  tend  to  connect  Mr.  Hay- 
wood  with  this  offense,  but  it  does  tend  to  show,  as  we  had 
a  right  to  show,  the  truthfulness  of  the  statement  of  Mr. 
Orchard.  Other  witnesses  might  be  noted,  which  would  il- 
lustrate the  difference  between  the  corroboration  that  simply 
goes  to  the  question  of  truthfulness  of  the  witness  and  to  the 
question  of  the  corroboration  that  of  itself  and  independent  of 
Orchard's  testimony  tends  to  connect  the  defendant  with  the 
offense  here  charged.  This  last  class  of  corroborative  evidence 
must  be  found  in  the  record  before  we  are  entitled  to  a  verdict, 
although  aside  from  it  you  should  be  satisfied  in  your  own 
mind  that  the  statements  of  Harry  Orchard  are  true.  In  other 
words,  you  might,  after  hearing  his  testimony  say,  "We  are 
satisfied  Mr.  Orchard  told  the  truth,"  but  if  you  should  fail 
to  find  the  corroborative  evidence  tending  to  connect  the  de- 
fendant with  the  crime,  then  the  statute  would  interpose  and 
you  could  not  render  a  verdict  of  guilty.  One  of  the  import- 
ant questions,  therefore,  is  whether  or  not  there  is  any  cor- 
roborative evidence  here  tending  to  connect  the  defendant 


S3 

with  this  offense,  which  evidence  of  itself  has  that  effect  It 
is  not  necessary  that  the  corroborative  evidence  of  itself  estab- 
lish his  guilt;  it  is  not  necessary  that  it  of  itself  be  sufficient 
to  satisfy  you  beyond  reasonable  doubt.  It  is  not  necessary 
that  it  in  fact  connect  the  defendant  with  the  crime.  If  you 
are  satisfied  of  the  truth  of  Orchard's  statement  and  then  satis- 
fied in  addition  that  there  is  evidence  which  of  itself  tends  to 
connect  the  defendant  with  this  offense,  the  statute  is  satisfied. 
For  instance,  if  you  should  be  satisfied  that  after  Orchard  was 
arrested  and  this  defendant,  knowing  of  his  offense,  came  to 
his  rescue,  that  of  itself  might  be  suffcient  to  tend  to  connect 
him  with  the  offense  charged.  If  you  should  be  satisfied  that 
the  letter,  which  Mr.  Orchard  says  came  from  Mr.  Pettibone, 
referred  to  the  hundred  dollar  draft  which  Mr.  Haywood  sent 
to  Mr.  Simpkins  and  that  it  was  sent  for  the  purpose  of  as- 
sisting in  this  murder  or  to  hold  up  Orchard  while  he  was 
committing  the  crime,  that  he  sent  the  draft  knowing  these 
facts,  that  of  itself  would  be  a  strong  circumstance  which 
would  be  entirely  sufficient  to  satisfy  the  statute.  It  is  not 
necessary  for  us  to  show,  as  was  argued  by  Mr.  Richardson, 
that  a  corroborative  fact  must  stand  alone  and  be  sufficient 
by  itself  to  sustain  us  under  the  statute.  Circumstances  run- 
ning through  the  case  gather  strength  as  they  go,  and  when 
they  are  all  put  together  they  may  be  amply  sufficient  to  sat- 
isfy you  of  the  connection  of  the  defendant  with  the  offense, 
whereas  one  fact  or  one  circumstance  standing  alone  would 
not  do  so.  A  man  may  be  connected  with  a  crime  and  the 
corroboration  may  consist  wholly  of  circumstantial  evidence, 
just  as  a  man  may  be  convicted  upon  circumstantial  evidence 
alone.  And  if  you  find  in  this  case  that  the  circumstances 
are — such  as  the  writing  of  the  letter  to  Mrs.  Orchard  with 
knowledge  that  a  crime  was  to  be  committed,  or  the  writing  of 


34 

the  letter  upon  the  part  of  Mr.  Pettibone  at  the  suggestion  of 
Mr.  Haywood,  or  the  sending  of  telegrams  transmitting  money 
upon  the  part  of  Pettibone — I  say  if  you  find  these  circum- 
stances are  proven  they  may  become  convincing  and  conclu- 
sive and  they  may  be  sufficient  to  satisfy  you  that  the  de- 
fendant in  this  case  was  connected  with  this  offense  even 
when  some  single  circumstance  or  fact  alone  would  not  do 
so. 

I  would  like  to  close  this  evening  for  it  is  too  hot  to  pro- 
ceed. 

Adjourned. 

Near  the  close  of  my  argument  last  night  I  had  undertaken 
to  call  your  attention  to  some  general  principles  under  which 
the  case  is  to  be  tried — some  general  rules  with  reference  to 
the  evidence  of  Orchard  and  the  corroboration  which  should 
obtain  in  order  to  entitle  us  to  a  verdict  at  your  hands.  I  shall 
not  undertake  to  review  all  the  evidence  in  this  case.  I  shall 
not  do  so  for  several  reasons.  In  the  first  place,  I  do  not 
know  that  I  should  be  able  to  do  so  from  a  physical  stand- 
point, and  secondly,  there  is  no  necessity  for  that  for  Mr. 
Hawley  has  gone  very  fully  into  the  evidence ;  but  particular- 
ly for  the  reason  that  it  is  not  within  the  scope  and  purpose 
of  my  argument  to  do  other  than  to  group  the  evidence  in  a 
general  way  around  four  points,  and  if  I  succeed  in  doing  that 
I  shall  be  content  in  my  own  mind  that  I  have  done  all  I  can 
for  the  State's  final  presentation. 

I  want  to  call  your  attention  to  the  first  point  and  that  is 
whether  or  not  the  conspiracy  existed ;  whether  there  was  an 
agreement  upon  the  part  of  four  or  five  certain  men  whom  I 
shall  name  to  commit  crime  and  to  do  violence  to  those  whom 
they  believed  to  be  antagonistic  and  unfriendly  to  the  West- 
ern Federation  of  Miners. 


35 

Second.  Was  the  defendant  a  member  of  that  conspiracy- 
did  he  know  that  it  existed,  did  he  aid,  abet,  assist  and  en- 
courage anyone  in  the  commission  of  this  crime. 

Third.     Has  Harry  Orchard  told  the  truth  in  this  case? 

Fourth.  Is  there  sufficient  corroborative  evidence  which 
of  itself  tends  to  connect  the  defendant  Haywood  with  the 
crime  to  satisfy  the  statute? 

I  want  you  to  keep  these  four  propositions  in  your  mind 
and  be  patient  with  me  while  I  go  through  some  of  this  evi- 
dence. Of  course  I  shall  have  to  travel  over  territory  that 
has  been  covered  already  and  much  more  ably  than  I  can  do. 

I  want  to  take  up  this  argument  a  little  differently  from 
what  my  associate  did,  or  my  opponents.  I  desire  to  begin 
my  discussion  of  this  case  as  to  the  evidence,  with  the  mur- 
der of  Governor  Steunenberg  and  to  travel  back  over  the 
trail  of  Harry  Orchard  rather  than  to  commence  with  the 
Colorado  situation  and  come  this  way.  I  want  you  to  pay 
particular  attention  to  one  proposition  with  reference  to  the 
killing  of  ex-Governor  Steunenberg  and  that  is  as  to  the  cor- 
roboration  of  the  testimony  of  Orchard. 

There  is  no  Mine  Owners'  Association  connected  with  the 
death  of  Governor  Steunenberg.  There  are  no  Pinkerton  de- 
tectives having  to  do  with  his  death.  Orchard  was  not  sent 
there  by  the  mine  owners  nor  by  the  Pinkertons.  He  was 
in  company  with  the  official  head  in  this  State,  of  the  Western 
Federation  of  Miners.  At  the  time  of  Governor  Steunenberg's 
death  there  was  no  conflict,  no  trouble  anywhere  in  this  State. 
This  man  having  done  what  he  believed  to  be  his  duty  when 
he  held  his  official  position  had  retired  to  private  life.  He 
was  going  his  way  among  men,  passing  out  and  in.  There 
were  no  difficulties  here,  there  were  no  conflicts  to  divide 
men's  passions  or  feelings  or  to  arouse  them.  It  was  a  cold- 


36 

blooded,  deliberate  murder,  the  malicious  and  premeditated 
killing  of  one  who  stood  unchallenged  in  his  actions  before 
the  world.  This  relieves  us  of  much  of  the  discussion  that 
pertains  to  other  situations,  and  it  is  very  necessary  to  get 
this  particular  point  of  view  to  start  with. 

Colorado  Troubles. 

There  are  many  things  which  happened  in  Colorado  on  both 
sides,  things  which  men  on  either  side  had  no  right  to  do ; 
things  which  ought  not  to  have  been  done  at  all.  I  am  not 
going  to  defend  the  mine  owners.  I  do  not  care  anything 
about  them  so  far  as  this  case  is  concerned.  They  are  no 
part  of  this  controversy.  They  are  like  other  men,  no  better 
and  no  worse.  I  am  not  here  to  defend  the  militia.  I  do  not 
care  anything  about  the  militia.  I  am  not  here  to  criticize 
them,  but  I  will  say  generally  that  I  apprehend  the  time  will 
come  when  Colorado  will  awaken  to  the  fact  that  there  ought 
to  be  something  in  Colorado  higher  and  better  than  the  mi- 
litia, higher  and  better  than  the  question  of  union  or  non- 
union men,  and  that  is  the  manhood  and  integrity  and  patriot- 
ism of  the  State.  But  in  this  discussion  of  the  Steunenberg 
murder  we  have  a  clear  field  so  far  as  these  matters  are  con- 
cerned. We  get  a  clear  view  of  the  relationship  of  the  man 
who  is  guilty  and  the  men  whom  we  charge — their  actions  to- 
ward one  another  relieved  of  any  of  the  condition  of  affairs 
that  embarrass  or  cloud  or  veil  the  true  situation  from  a 
juryman's  standpoint. 

Steunenberg  Murder. 

Beginning,  therefore,  with  the  death  of  Governor  Steunen- 
berg, we  observe  again  that  Harry  Orchard  starts  upon  his 
mission  of  crime  from  the  city  of  Denver.  This  is  not  de- 


37 

pendent  upon  the  testimony  of  Harry  Orchard.  It  is  proven 
entirely  outside  of  any  of  his  statements,  any  evidence  that 
he  gave  in  this  case.  Mr.  Haywood  tells  you  that  along  the 
latter  part  of  August,  between  the  25th  and  30th,  1905,  Harry 
Orchard  left  the  city  of  Denver.  He  says  that  at  that  time 
he  came  home  one  day  and  that  his  wife  said  to  him  that 
Orchard  must  have  gone.  He  says  he  saw  him  several  times 
during  the  latter  part  of  August,  talked  with  him  at  Petti- 
bone's  house,  observed  his  presence  in  Denver,  tells  you  at 
last  that  he  left  there  between  the  25th  and  30th  of  August, 
1905. 

We  track  Orchard,  not  by  his  testimony  but  by  the  testi- 
mony of  other  parties,  from  Denver  to  the  city  of  Nampa  and 
from  there  to  the  city  of  Caldwell.  We  find  that  a  few  day 
after  he  leaves  the  city  of  Denver  and  the  home  of  this  de- 
fendant, in  a  very  short  time  after  Mrs.  Haywood  saw  him 
there,  that  he  is  registered  at  the  hotel  in  the  city  of  Nampa 
and  a  very  few  days  thereafter  at  the  hotel  in  the  city  of  Cald- 
well. We  learned  from  Mr.  Easterly  that  about  the  first  of 
September  he  had  some  communication  with  Orchard  be- 
tween Caldwell  and  Silver  City.  So,  aside  from  the  testi- 
mony of  Orchard,  it  is  well  established  that  he  came  direct 
from  the  city  of  Denver  to  the  city  of  Caldwell,  that  he  came 
directly  from  the  home  of  the  defendant  to  the  place  where 
Governor  Steunenberg  lived. 

As  stated  to  you  by  Mr..Darrow,  you  were  not  obliged  to 
put  aside  your  common  sense  or  lay  aside  your  reasoning 
power  when  you  became  jurors.  You  should  weigh  the  prob- 
abilities and  improbabilities  and  exercise  what  is  sometimes 
called  in  this  country  "horse  sense"  with  reference  to  these 
matters.  And  when  we  find  Orchard  going  directly  from 
Denver  to  the  home  of  Governor  Steunenberg  with  no  osten- 


38 

sible  legitimate  purpose,  we  naturally  ask  why  he  took  this 
trip.  Why  did  he  go  ?  Did  he  go  to  gamble  with  the  soldiers  ? 
Did  he  go  to  pursue  the  vocation  to  which  they  say  he  was 
devoted?  Did  he  go  there  for  the  purpose  of  working  in  the 
mines  ?  Did  he  go  there  to  associate  with  any  of  his  old  com- 
rades or  friends  or  to  find  those  with  whom  he  was  inclined 
to  associate,  or  did  he  go  as  the  emissary  of  this  organization 
to  gratify  a  long  standing  grudge? 

We  find  another  thing:  When  he  arrived  in  Caldwell,  at  no 
time  did  he  engage  in  any  pursuit  or  purport  to  do  any  bus- 
iness, nor  did  he  give  any  evidence  of  the  fact  that  he  was 
there  for  a  legitimate  or  proper  purpose.  He  seems  to  have 
left  Denver,  to  have  gone  directly  to  the  home  of  the  man 
whom  it  will  be  conceded  the  Western  Federation  looked  upon 
as  an  enemy,  to  spy  upon  his  home  for  weeks  and  months 
until  he  finally  accomplished  his  death. 

You  must  find  an  interpretation  for  a  man's  acts.  Orchard, 
having  left  the  immediate  presence  and  contact  and  associa- 
tion of  the  defendant  and  the  leaders  of  the  Western  Federa- 
tion of  Miners  and  having  gone  directly  to  the  scene  of  the 
murder,  you  naturally  ask  why.  All  these  facts  are  proven 
outside  of  the  testimony  of  Harry  Orchard.  There  is  another 
matter  here  to  which  I  want  to  call  your  attention  a  little  out 
of  its  order  and  that  is  a  letter  that  Orchard  wrote  and  sent  by 
Marion  Moore  to  be  mailed  in  Alaska  back  to  his  wife.  There 
are  two  uses  to  which  this  letter  can  be  put  and  I  call  your  at- 
tention to  it  at  this  time  to  show  the  close  association  of 
Orchard  with  the  leaders  of  the  Western  Federation  of  Miners. 
He  wrote  a  letter — left  out  the  date.  He  went  to  Moore,  who 
was  on  the  Executive  Board — not  to  some  tin-horn  gambler, 
not  to  some  associate  in  the  low  walks  of  life  where  they  have 
placed  him,  but  he  went  to  one  of  the  leaders  of  the 


39 

Western  Federation  of  Miners  and  said  to  him  in  substance, 
"I  want  to  deceive  my  wife" — or,  taking  Moore's  inference  for 
it — "I  want  to  deceive  my  mistress."  And  I  take  it,  so  far 
as  Moore  is  concerned  and  his  connection  with  this  affair,  it 
makes  very  little  difference  whether  he  regarded  this  woman 
as  Orchard's  wife  or  his  mistress.  Anyway  he  says,  "I  want 
to  get  away  from  her,  I  want  to  mislead  her  as  to  my  where- 
abouts, and  I  want  you,  an  officer  of  this  labor  organization, 
to  carry  this  letter  dated  Alaska,  and  become  a  co-conspirator 
from  a  moral  standpoint  in  my  efforts  to  disassociate  myself 
from  my  wife  and  children,  or  the  woman  with  whom  I  am 
living."  Gentlemen,  I  ask  you  what  questions  would  you 
have  asked  him  and  what  would  you  have  done  under  the  cir- 
cumstances, especially  if  this  man  had  been  practically  a 
stranger  to  you,  as  Moore  alleges  Orchard  was  to  him?  Would 
you  have  engaged  in  that  dirty,  contemptible  little  piece  of 
work?  Would  you  not  have  said,  ''Have  the  manhood  and 
courage  to  go  tell  your  wife  the  situation,  or  the  woman  with 
whom  you  are  living?"  Would  you  not  have  said,  "If  this  is 
your  way  of  doing  things  I  will  have  nothing  to  do  with  it 
and  you  had  better  get  off  the  benefit  list?"  But  for  some 
reason  Orchard  always  felt  assured  that  he  could  go  to  an 
officer  of  the  Western  Federation  of  Miners  with  any  kind  of 
a  crime  on  hand  and  not  be  turned  away,  and  he  was  never 
mistaken  in  his  position.  So  we  have  the  close  association  of 
these  men,  not  only  in  the  ordinary  affairs  of  life,  but  in  what 
at  least  was  a  violation  of  the  moral  law.  Here  is  a  moral 
outrage  disclosed  by  this  transaction  because,  as  it  turns  out, 
Moore  took  the  letter,  carried  it  all  the  way  to  Alaska,  put  the 
date  in  the  letter  and  sent  it  back  to  the  woman  over  whom 
they  have  shed  so  many  tears  in  this  case.  Was  Harry  Orch- 
ard very  much  worse  than  Moore,  and  what  was  the  relation 


40 

of  these  parties?  What  do  you  think  of  the  association  of 
this  man  with  the  leader  of  the  Western  Federation  of  Miners  ? 
All  this  took  place  in  the  latter  part  of  July,  1905,  about  the 
time  they  were  discussing  the  death  of  Governor  Steunen- 
berg. 

Again,  we  find  that  Mr.  Moyer  came  home  from  California, 
according  to  his  own  statement,  in  the  latter  part  of  August, 
1905.  We  have  no  testimony  of  the  association  of  Orchard 
with  Mr.  Moyer  other  than  Orchard's  testimony,  but  Moyer 
was  there,  according  to  his  statement,  in  August,  1905.  He 
returned  from  the  State  of  California  where  he  had  been  for 
his  health.  In  this  connection  is  an  incident  which  I  must 
again  go  out  of  my  way  to  mention,  and  that  is  the  Neville 
matter.  You  will  remember  that  one  of  the  things  Orchard 
was  to  do  upon  his  way  West  was  to  kill  Neville.  Something 
has  been  said  as  to  why  we  did  not  put  Charley  Neville  on  the 
stand.  I  may  discuss  that  later,  but  I  now  call  your  attention 
to  the  fact  that  Mr.  Moyer  admitted  an  important  proposition 
to  which  Charley  Neville  would  undoubtedly  have  testified 
had  Mr.  Moyer  not  admitted  it,  and  that  is  that  old  man  Ne- 
ville had  at  one  time  appeared  at  Federation  headquarters 
and  asked  for  money  from  the  Federation.  The  amount  is  not 
very  material,  but  the  fact  that  he  was  there,  that  he  asked 
for  money  and  asked  for  it  by  reason  of  the  Independence 
depot  explosion  is  admitted  by  Mr.  Moyer.  Probably  the 
presence  of  Charley  Neville  here  in  the  court  room  had  some- 
thing to  do 'with  that  admission.  But  the  important  fact  is 
that  old  man  Neville  was  figuring  in  the  affairs  of  these  par- 
ties and  had  demanded  money,  as  Orchard  stated ;  that  he  had 
been  arrested  and  connected  up  with  the  Independence  depot 
explosion.  So  Mr.  Moyer  was  there  in  the  latter  part  of  Aug- 


41 

ust.  Neville  was  there  asking  for  money.  Orchard  says  that 
Moyer  called  his  attention  to  the  fact  that  he  wanted  to  get 
away  with  Neville  at  this  time  because  he  had  demanded 
money  and  knew  too  much. 

What  do  we  next  find?  We  find  by  the  testimony  of  Orch- 
ard that  Pettibone  arranged  and  assisted  in  his  departure  for 
Caldwell.  They  will  say  to  you  that  there  is  no  evidence  of 
this  except  the  evidence  of  Orchard.  I  say  to  you  that  there 
is  the  strongest  kind  of  corroborative  evidence,  and  that  is 
the  silence  of  Mr.  Pettibone.  The  court,  in  my  judgment,  will 
instruct  you  that  when  an  important  fact  is  within  the  control 
of  the  defendant,  the  proof  of  which  fact  would  greatly  aid 
his  cause,  and  he  fails  to  produce  it,  it  is  a  strong  circum- 
stance which  you  may  take  into  consideration.  Remember, 
that  if  Mr.  Pettibone  was  a  member  of  this  conspiracy  his 
act  was  the  act  of  Haywood  and  his  silence  at  this  time  is 
the  silence  of  Haywood.  The.  very  fact  that  Orchard  testifies 
that  he  assisted  him  in  getting  ready  for  this  criminal  enter- 
prise and  the  fact  that  Pettibone  remains  in  jail  down  below, 
silent,  not  willing  or  afraid  to  deny,  is  a  powerful  corrobora- 
tion  of  Orchard's  statement.  Pettibone  is  charged  with  hav- 
ing performed  a  criminal  act  and  he  does  not  deny  it. 

"But,"  says  Mr.  Darrow,  "we  would  not  put  Mr.  Pettibone 
upon  the  stand  because  he  must  be  tried  himself."  Now  I 
am  not  going  to  quarrel  with  them  as  to  the  keen,  shrewd 
manner  in  which  they  try  criminal  cases.  I  am  not  going  to 
ask  this  jury  to  pass  any  criticism  upon  them — whether  they 
acted  with  good  judgment  or  not  in  keeping  him  off  the  stand. 
They  may  have  exercised  good  judgment  in  doing  so — in  fact, 
I  think  they  did.  In  this  respect  I  think  they  are  correct.  They 
perhaps  took  less  chances  by  keeping  him  off  than  by  putting 
him  on  and  in  this  respect  showed  much  shrewdness  as  at- 


42 

torneys.  But  it  does  not  change  the  fact  of  his  silence  nor 
take  away  the  fact  that  it  is  a  powerful  corroboration  that  he 
is  afraid  to  go  on.  It  rather  adds  to  the  strength  of  our  con- 
tention— the  fact  that  this  man  is  off  the  witness  stand,  the 
fact  that  the  lawyers  called  in  consultation  evidently  decided 
it  was  not  safe  for  him  to  go  upon  the  witness  stand.  His 
absence  under  those  circumstances  is  not  less  a  matter  of 
strong  proof  before  the  jury.  Why  is  he  off  the  witness 
stand,  why  does  he  remain  away?  Because  he  must  take  care 
of  himself.  Sure.  But  nevertheless  there  is  the  place,  there 
the  opportunity  to  explain  or  attack  one  of  the  most  vital 

points  in  this  case.     And  silence  is  proof  and  strong  proof 

i 
corroborative  of  Orchard's  story.     So  we  have  the  proof  that 

another  member  of  this  conspiracy  was  there  in  Denver  at 
this  time  associating  with  Orchard,  assisting  him  in  his  de- 
parture, getting  him  ready  to  go  to  the  city  of  Caldwell. 

What  does  Mr.  Haywood,  the,  defendant,  say  with  reference 
to  Orchard  going  from  his  immediate  presence  to  Caldwell? 
He  says  that  he  saw  him — I  think,  to  put  it  altogether  in  his 
favor — two  or  three  times  during  the  latter  part  of  August. 
He  says  that  he  was  stopping  at  Pettibone's  house,  that  he 
had  a  talk  with  him  in  Pettibone's  kitchen,  that  he  talked  with 
him  about  his  domestic  affairs.  The  policeman  says  they  were 
walking  together  and  Haywood  says  it  was  likely  true  they 
were  walking  together  and  associating  together  —  dis- 
cussing matters  which  only  men  in  intimate  relations  would 
discuss  with  one  another.  Not  only  that,  but  he  says  to  you 
that  Mrs.  Haywood  said  to  him  between  the  25th  and  30th  of 
August  that  Orchard  had  gone,  and  that  is  the  last  we  see  of 
him  in  Dfenver. 

So,  gentlemen  of  the  jury,  he  not  only  starts  from  the  city 
of  Denver,  but  he  starts  from  the  immediate  association  and 


43 

companionship  and  from  immediate  touch  with  these  defend- 
ants, to  Caldwell.  No  proof?  Oh,  no.  As  Mr.  Richardson 
would  say,  this  event  does  not  prove  anything.  Standing 
alone,  possibly  not.  But  it  is  the  beginning  of  the  proof  of  a 
very  strong  chain  of  circumstances  we  are  building  step  by 
step.  From  these  circumstances  we  will  build  to  the  point 
where  we  will  ask  you  as  jurymen  to  take  it  all,  group  all  the 
facts  together,  and  then  explain  it  if  you  can  upon  any  other 
theory  than  that  of  the  defendant's  guilt. 

And  how  did  he  go?  He  not  only  left  Denver  from  immed- 
iate association  with  these  defendants  to  go  to  Caldwell  where 
he  had  no  ostensible  business  on  the  face  of  the  earth  unless  it 
was  murder,  but  he  went  armed  like  a  Cuban  major  general. 
He  had  a  sawed-off  shotgun  and  he  had  the  Peabody  bomb, 
loaded,  in  his  trunk.  He  left  Denver,  as  you  know,  with 
crime  in  his  heart.  He  did  not  get  the  inspiration  in  Wallace 
a  month  afterwards.  His  inspiration  did  not  come  by  reason 
of  his  association  with  Paulson  and  those  of  the  Hercules  with 
whom  he  had  once  been  associated.  He  carried  it  with  him 
from  Denver.  It  was  the  moving,  impelling  and  compelling 
power  with  which  he  left  the  city.  Did  he  have  that 
sawed-off  shot  gun?  Did  he  have  the  bomb?  In  the 
first  place,  let  me  call  your  attention  to  the  fact  that 
here  is  where  Pettibone  mignt  offer  some  more  testimony. 
Darrow  says  that  Pettibone  was  the  man  whom  everybody 
called  upon  for  everything — to  buy  sawed-off  shotguns  and 
everything  else  needed  in  order  to  run  the  business  of  the 
Western  Federation  of  Miners.  They  always  went  to  Petti- 
bone, and  Orchard  says  that  Pettibone  helped  him  get  ready 
and  that  "Pettibone  helped  him  pack  this  Peabody  bomb  in 
his  trunk.  Gentlemen,  I  want  you  to  remember  this,  that  there 
is  one  of  those  conspirators  down  there  in  jail  who  another 


44 

conspirator,  Mr.  Orchard,  says  helped  pack  his  trunk  with 
a  bomb  when  he  started  on  his  trip  from  Denver.  Is  it  a  fact 
when  it  is  thus  undenied?  Is  it  a  fact  when  they  have  the 
means  to  dispute  it  and  refuse  to  do  so?  Is  it  not  corrobora- 

tion  of  Orchard?     Is  not  his  silence  a  confession? 

,*' 

Let  us  trace  this  Peabody  bomb  and  find  out  if  there  is  any 
other  corroborative  evidence  in  this  case  as  to  the  manner  in 
which  Orchard  went  from  Denver  to  Caldwell.  Orchard  says 
he  went  down  the  streets  of  Denver  somewhere  at  one  time 
when  he  was  getting  ready  to  kill  Governor  Peabody  and 
ordered  a  bomb  to  be  made  and  told  them  he  wanted  it  for 
a  cactus  plant.  Mr.  Roach  comes  upon  the  witness  stand  and 
tells  you  that  the  order  was  made,  the  bomb  is  identified  as 
the  bomb  which  was  made  under  this  order.  It  was  delivered 
to  a  man  in  the  tailor  shop  adjoining  and  by  him  to  Orchard. 
Orchard  says  he  took  it  to  Canyon  City.  Mr.  Vaughn  says 
there  was  something  of  that  nature  there  in  the  room  and 
that  there  was  some  talk  about  it.  Orchard  says  he  wrote 
to  Marion  Moore  to  bring  it  up  from  Canyon  City,  and  Marion 
Moore,  though  on  the  witness  stand,  does  not  deny  it.  They 
get  it  back  from  Canyon  City  and  Orchard  says  he  packed  it 
in  a  trunk  with  Pettibone's  assistance  to  bring  it  to  Cald- 
well, and  Pettibone  does  not  deny  it.  Orchard  goes  to  Cald- 
well and  afterwards  the  bomb  turns  up — where?  Up  here  in 
the  city  of  Wallace  along  the  trail  where  Orchard  and  Simp- 
kins  traveled.  Mr.  Richardson  can  not  conceive  of  the  fact 
that  Orchard  would  carry  this  bomb  on  the  train  loaded,  but 
it  was  loaded.  Study  the  life  of  this  man ;  the  commission  of 
crime  with  him  was  supreme  over  everything  else  in  life;  he 
had  no  more  regard  for  human  life  than  I  have  for  the  ants 
upon  which  I  tread.  If  Goddard's  family  was  killed 
he  was  indifferent.  If  Gabbert's  family  was  killed  he  passed 


45 

on.  A  man  that  could  blow  up  fourteen  men  as  he  did  at  the 
Independence  depot  would  not  hestiate  about  putting  a  bomb 
in  his  trunk  and  carry  it  on  the  train.  But  the  fact  remains 
that  he  did  carry  it,  for  the  young  fireman  finds  it  at  Wallace 
in  the  river  and  finds  it  loaded.  Angus  Sutherland  gets  it 
from  the  fireman,  brings  it  down  here  and  identifies  it.  Mr. 
Roach  also  identifies  it.  We  have  identified  this  instrument 
of  war  taken  with  Mr.  Orchard  on  his  trip  from  Denver  to  the 
city  of  Caldwell. 

He  did  not  have  it  with  him  for  the  purpose  of  engagaing  in 
card  playing  with  the  soldiers ;  the  mine  owners  did  not  give 
it  to  him;  the  Pinkertons  did  not  furnish  it  to  him;  he  left 
Denver  from  the  association  of  these  defendants,  still  on  the 
benefit  list  of  the  Western  Federation  of  Miners,  left  from 
the  immediate  association  of  Pettibone  and  Haywood,  carrying 
this  instrument  of  death  with  him.  Is  there  any  doubt  that 
he  went  there  for  the  purpose  of  murder?  Is  there  any  doubt 
that  the  co-conspirators  knew  where  he  was  going  and  why  he 
was  going?  You  may  possibly  doubt  as  to  who  sent  him,  but 
you  can  not  doubt  that  he  left  Denver  with  the  intention  of 
killing  Governor  Steunenberg  when  he  left.  That  is  one  fact 
that  is  settled  beyond  all  question,  and  we  will  settle  the  other 
question  by  further  testimony. 

Motive. 

Gentlemen,  when  we  find  men  engaged  and  associated  to- 
gether for  the  purpose  of  crime  and  the  question  of  who  is 
responsible  and  who  is  not  arises,  we  come  immediately  to  the 
question  of  motive.  We  have  Orchard  going  all  the  way  from 
Denver  to  Caldwell ;  he  has  arrived  and  he  is  ready  for  mur- 
der. Now  the  question  arises,  Whose  motive  was  it,  what  was 
it  that  impelled  him  to  come? 


46 

First,  then,  let  us  take  up  this  question  of  the  personal  griev- 
ance against  Governor  Steunenberg — this  matter  of  the  for- 
feiture of  his  interest  in  the  Hercules  mine.  Mr.  Darrow  said 
he  would  show  that  this  sale  from  Orchard  to  Cardoni  was 
a  conditional  sale.  You  understand  exactly  what  a  conditional 
sale  is.  Is  there  a  single  word  in  this  evidence — has  a  single 
witness  testified  to  any  fact  which  indicates  anything  which 
has  the  semblance  of  a  conditional  sale?  Some  witnesses  have 
testified  that  he  made  threats,  but  what  we  want  to  know  first 
is  where  is  this  conditional  sale  of  which  we  were  told  and 
upon  what  could  Mr.  Darrow  have  possibly  based  his  state- 
ment that  they  would  prove  it?  Upon  what  facts  could  Mr. 
Orchard  possibly  base  his  statement  that  he  lost  the  prop- 
erty? The  conditional  sale  has  not  been  proven  in  any  way. 
They  content  themselves  with  undertaking  to  show  that  Orch- 
ard made  threates  because  he  had  forfeited  his  property,  which 
he  in  fact  never  did  forfeit.  They  have  abandoned  the  idea  of 
a  conditional  sale,  they  have  not  shown  how  it  was  purchased, 
whether  absolutely  or  upon  condition,  whether  the  deed  was 
in  fact  a  deed  or  a  mortgage.  There  is  not  a  word  of  testi- 
mony in  this  case  upon  this  proposition.  They  say,  ''Why  does 
not  Mr.  Cardoni  come  here."  I  apprehend  that  Cardoni  is 
not  an  idiot.  Why  should  he  come?  He  has  an  absolute  deed 
recorded.  He  has  been  in  possession  for  eight  years  and  the 
grantor  in  the  deed  testifies  it  was  an  absolute  deed.  Do  you 
know  of  any  way  to  make  the  title  better?  There  is  nothing 
here  for  Cardoni  to  be  anxious  about.  He  has  a  perfect  title, 
an  absolute  title.  There  is  nothing  that  could  be  added  that 
could  make  it  more  perfect.  So  Mr.  Cardoni  can  very  well  af- 
ford to  spend  his  time  in  Spain  looking  over  the  beauties  of 
that  country  and  visiting  with  his  friends,  as  has  been  sug- 
gested in  this  court  room  he  is  now  doing.  His  title  is  perfect 


47 

and  absolute.  A  decree  of  court  could  not  help  it,  and  besides, 
court  decrees  with  reference  to  title  are  seldom  rendered  in 
criminal  cases.  Now  this  deed  was  made  upon  the  7th  day  of 
March.  1S51S.  When  they  asked  Orchard  if  he  did  not  make 
a  conditional  sale  he  told  them  promptly  that  he  made  a  deed. 
\\Y  £0  to  the  record  and  we  find  the  record  sustains  Orchard. 
Right  here  I  want  to  call  your  attention  to  one  thing.  It  is 
a  powerful  feature  of  proof  in  this  case.  Do  not  forget  it  at 
any  time  when  you  are  considering  this  evidence.  There  is  not 
a  single  scintilla  of  evidence  here  such  as  record  evidence,  reg- 
istered letters,  telegrams,  deeds,  not  a  single  piece  of  evidence 
of  that  nature  that  was  not  subject  to  any  man's  power  to 
change,  that  could  not  be  tampered  with  ;  that  does  not  cor- 
roborate Orchard.  He  says  he  got  money  by  telegram,  and 
the  telegraph  records  tell  the  same  story.  He  says  he  got 
registered  letters  from  Pettibone,  and  the  registered  letter 
records  show  that  he  did.  He  said  he  sold  his  property  and 
gave  his  deed  at  a  certain  time  and  the  record  sustains  him. 
Put  your  finger  if  you  can  upon  a  piece  of  that  kind  of  testi- 
mony that  does  not  dovetail  into  the  story  of  Harry  Orchard. 
You  will  find  that  every  piece  and  particle  sustains  him 
throughout. 

It  is  barely  possible  that  Easterly  might  tell  a  story.  It  is 
barely  possible  that  Lottie  Day  might  be  mistaken — she  is  a 
woman  so  I  will  not  say  anything  stronger  than  that.  It  is 
possible  that  McGee  may  have  gotten  his  dates  mixed  as  did 
Aller.  But  these  things,  the  telegraph  records,  the  registered 
letters,  the  deeds  brought  here  before  you,  are  silent  but  un- 
impeachable witnesses.  And  never  has  Harry  Orchard  come 
in  contact  with  a  record  in  this  case  but  the  record  has  come 
forward  to  sustain  him.  Is  not  this  a  powerful  circumstance? 
And  now  what  does  this  deed  say?  "And  also  all  the  estate. 


48 

right,  title,  interest,  property,  possession,  claim  and  demand 
whatsoever,  as  well  in  law  as  in  equity  of  the  said  party  of 
the  first  part,  of,  in  or  to  said  premises  and  every  part  and 
parcel  thereof  with  the  appurtenances.  To  have  and  to  hold 
all  and  singular  the  said  premises  with  the  appurtenances  and 
privileges  thereto  incident  unto  the  said  party  of  the  second 
part  and  his  heirs  and  assigns  forever.  In  witness  whereof 
the  said  party  of  the  first  part  has  hereunto  set  his  hand  and 
seal  the  day  and  year  first  above  written.  On  this  7th  day  of 
March,  A.  D.  1898,  before  me,  John  M.  Fenn,  a  notary  public 
in  and  for  said  county,  personally  appeared  Harry  K.  Orchard, 
personally  known  to  me  to  be  the  same  person  whose  name 
is  subscribed  to  the  within  instrument  who  executed  the 
same  and  who  acknowledged  to  me  that  he  executed  the  same 
freely  and  voluntarily  for  the  uses  and  purposes  therein  set 
forth.  In  testimony  whereof  I  have  hereunto  set  my  hand 
and  affixed  my  official  seal  at  my  office  in  Wallace  on  the  day 
and  date  in  this  certificate  first  above  written.  John  M.  Fenn, 
notary  public.  Recorded  at  the  request  of  D.  Cardoni,  March 
8,  1898,  at  9  o'clock  a.  m.,  in  Book  7  of  Deeds,  page  628  of  the 
records  of  Shoshone  County,  Idaho."  We  say,  therefore,  that 
upon  the  7th  day  of  March,  1898,  Mr.  Orchard  gave  a  deed 
absolute  to  Mr.  Cardoni.  Mr.  Cardoni  takes  the  deed  to  the 
recorder,  puts  it  on  record  where  it  is  notice  to  the  world  that 
he  is  the  sole  owner  of  that  property  and  Harry  Orchard  never 
claimed  it  thereafter.  Governor  Steunenberg  did  not  go  into 
the  Coeur  d'Alenes  with  the  troops  until  1899,  more  than  a 
year  after  Orchard  had  parted  with  his  title  and  the  vendee 
had  taken  possession  and  was  working  the  property.  Orchard 
in  the  meantime  was  working  for  him  at  a  salary.  Is  all  this 
proven  by  Orchard's  testimony  alone?  Certainly  not.  It  is 
conclusively  proven  outside  of  his  testimony.  There  are  two 


things  we  all  agree  upon  in  reference  to  Orchard.  First,  that 
he  is  not  a  fool,  and  second,  that  he  is  a  rascal.  No  dispute 
about  that.  If  there  had  been  any  way  in  the  world  for  him 
to  have  gotten  in  upon  this  mine,  any  conditional  sale,  he 
would  have  been  smart  enough  to  know  it  and  rascal  enough 
to  take  advantage  of  it.  They  say  he  was  trying  to  sell  it  to 
Gill.  And  yet  from  that  day  to  this  the  man  who  always 
wanted  money,  who  took  every  opportunity  to  get  it,  has  never 
for  a  moment  undertaken  to  blackmail  that  title  or  to  get 
an  interest  which  would  have  made  him  a  millionaire.  No,  he 
would  rather  kill  Steunenberg  for  causing  him  to  forfeit  a  title 
which  he  had  sold  a  year  before  he  ever  knew  of  the  existence 
of  Steunenberg.  This  is  the  logic  and  this  is  the  reasoning 
upon  which  this  defense  is  founded. 

If  Harry  Orchard  had  sold  out  some  additional  interest  or 
attempted  to  part  with  some  equity  after  Governor  Steunen- 
berg went  into  the  Coeur  d'Alenes,  if  he  had  made  this  con- 
ditional sale  into  an  absolute  sale  by  some  new  interest,  there 
might  be  some  basis  for  this  claim  that  he  forfeited  his  interest. 
But  the  coming  of  Governor  Steunenberg  into  the  Coeur 
d'Alenes  did  not  cause  him  to  change  his  attitude  toward  this 
property  in  any  respect.  He  had  not  claimed  an  interest  in  it 
for  over  a  year  and  he  had  nothing  to  forfeit.  Still  they  say 
Governor  Steunenberg  caused  him  to  lose  his  interest.  How 
did  he  cause  him  to  lose  it?  Suppose  you  should  make  a  con- 
ditional sale  tomorrow  of  your  property,  and  suppose  for  some 
reason  you  should  find  it  necessary  to  go  away,  leave  the  State, 
to  go  to  London.  Would  that  change  the  title  or  change  your 
rights?  Would  not  his  rights  have  been  just  the  same  clown 
in  Colorado  as  they  would  have  been  had  he  stayed  in  Idaho? 
The  evidence  does  not  show  that  he  executed  any  other  in- 
strument or  that  he  went  back  to  Cardoni  and  got  any  addi- 


50 

tional  money  or  made  any  release  of  any  equity — this  is  the 
only  paper  he  executed.  This  marks  the  date  when  he  sold. 
The  fact  of  his  leaving  the  State  of  Idaho  would  not  change 
the  title  from  a  conditional  to  an  unconditional  sale  without 
some  affirmative  act  upon  the  part  of  Orchard.  He  had  just 
the  same  title  to  the  Hercules  mine  when  he  arrived  in  Crip- 
ple Creek  in  1902  and  he  has  just  the  same  title  now  as  he 
had  upon  the  29th  day  of  April,  1899. 

What  did  Steunenberg's  going  into  the  Coeur  d'Alenes  have 
to  do  with  the  changing  of  the  title  to  this  property?  The 
deed  had  been  executed ;  it  was  absolute  on  its  face ;  no  otber 
deed  was  ever  executed ;  no  change  made  in  the  title.  Thcv 
would  seem  to  want  you  to  presume  or  to  infer,  without  any 
proof  to  that  effect,  that  this  deed  was  in  fact  a  mortgage. 
In  that  event  my  logic  is  all  the  more  forcible.  Once  a  mort- 
gage always  a  mortgage.  Every  lawyer  and  every  layman 
knows  that.  If  it  was  a  mortgage  upon  the  29th  of  April,  1899, 
it  was  a  mortgage  when  he  talked  with  Gill  in  Spo- 
kane in  1905.  If  he  had  anything  to  sell  in  March,  1899, 
he  had  the  same  interest  to  sell  to  Gill  in  1905.  He  had  not 
sold  anything  in  the  meantime,  had  he  ?  He  had  not  executed 
any  other  paper,  had  he?  He  had  not  forfeited  anything, 
had  he?  It  would  still  be  a  mortgage  and  he  would  have  just 
as  much  to  sell  to  Gill  in  1905  as  he  had  in  1899.  If  what  they 
claim  to  be  true  were  a  fact,  all  Orchard  would  have  to  do 
would  be  to  say,  "I  want  a  lawyer,"  and  a  dozen  lawyers,  from 
Chicago  and  elsewhere,  would  be  anxious  to  bring  a  suit  to 
recover  an  interest  in  the  Hercules  mine.  Orchard  would  not 
only  be  entitled  to  his  interest  but  he  would  be  entitled  to  an 
accounting  from  Cardoni.  How  ridiculous  this  all  seems ! 
And  it  would  be  ridiculous  if  it  were  not  for  the  interest  of 
the  defense  in  this  case. 


51 

The  testimony  shows,  therefore,  that  he  sold  this  interest 
to  some  one  a  year  before  the  trouble  and  that  he  could  not 
have  had  any  possible  reason  for  assassinating  ex-Governor 
Steunenberg  because  of  the  fact  that  he  had  lost  an  interest 
in  the  mine.  Nevertheless,  they  claim  he  stated  to  a  number  of 
parties  at  different  times,  that  he  did  lose  an  interest  and  that 
he  was  going  to  kill  Steunenberg  for  that  reason.  I  can  not 
discuss  all  the  testimony  in  regard  to  these  threates  but  I  am 
going  to  discuss  it  in  part. 

Bill  Easterly  says  that  away  back  in  1902  or  1903  Orchard 
told  him  that  he  was  going  to  kill  ex-Governor  Steunenberg 
because  he  caused  him  to  lose  his  interest  in  the  mine.  Of 
course  the  fact  that  he  had  no  interest  in  the  mines  does  not 
affect  Easterly's  story  a  particle.  He  says  he  told  him  on  one 
or  two  occasions  that  he  was  going  to  kill  this  man  whom 
Easterly  knew  to  be  an  ex-Governor  of  the  State  and  whom 

r 

he  knew  had  been  prominent  in  Coeur  d'Alene  affairs.  Mr. 
Easterly  carried  this  dreadful  secret  with  him  for  five  years 
and  until  he  came  down  to  Silver  City  in  the  State  of  Idaho. 
After  he  came  to  Silver  City  and  after  Orchard  went  to  Cald- 
well  for  the  purpose  of  killing  ex-Governor  Steunenberg,  he 
called  up  Easterly  over  the  'phone  and  talked  with  him.  East- 
erly had  this  secret  and  he  knew  that  Orchard,  the  man  who 
had  made  the  threat,  was  at  Steunenberg's  home  town.  Easter- 
ly said  nothing.  Finally  Easterly  sees  by  the  paper  that  Gov- 
ernor Steunenberg  has  been  blown  to  pieces,  that  he  had  been 
murdered,  and  by  this  same  man  Orchard,  who  had  made  the 
threat  and  who  had  been  a  fugitive  from  justice  from  Colo- 
rado from  the  6th  day  of  June,  1904.  He  knew  he  was 
killed  by  the  man  called  Hogan,  the  man  whom  Easterly  knew 
as  Hogan,  the  man  who  had  said  he  would  kill  him,  the  man 
who  was  a  suspect  and  a  fugitive,  and  still  Easterly  kept  the 
matter  to  himself. 


52 

Immediately  after  the  murder  the  officers  began  to  gather 
evidence  against  the  suspect.  Easterly  had  in  his  possession 
the  most  conclusive  proof  of  his  guilt  and  he  kept  it  to  him- 
self. The  State  was  searching  for  evidence ;  the  papers  were 
disclosing  the  fact  that  every  clew  was  being  gathered.  Mr. 
Easterly  knew  Orchard  all  the  time,  had  communicated  with 
him,  and  shortly  before  the  murder  had  talked  with 
him  over  the  'phone  and  had  written  to  him,  but  he  never 
opened  his  mouth  about  the  matter  until  this  defendant  was 
arrested  and  it  became  necessary  to  show  a  personal  motive 
upon  the  part  of  Orchard  for  this  killing. 

I  am  not  going  to  say  that  Easterly  lied.  That  is  a  matter 
which  you  will  pass  upon.  But  I  will  say  this :  He  either  tes- 
tified to  a  falsehood  or  he  was  a  member  of  the  conspiracy  to 
kill  Governor  Steunenberg.  Take  which  horn  of  the  dilemma 
you  want.  You  can  not  say  to  me,  you  can  not  say  to  reason- 
ing men,  that  this  man  Easterly  knew  Orchard  as  he  did,  this 
vile  wretch  whom  they  paint  here  day  after  day  as  the  most 
consummate  criminal  of  the  twentieth  century,  knew  him  as  a 
suspect,  knew  his  grudge  against  Governor  Steunenberg,  knew 
all  this  and  kept  it  to  himself  under  such  circumstances  unless 
he  was  a  member  of  the  conspiracy.  Why  was  he  concealing 
this  information?  For  the  protection  of  whom?  There  is  one 
redeeming  trait  about  Easterly.  He  finally  conies  to  the  con- 
clusion that  he  will  make  one  truthful  statement,  and  he  plain- 
ly says  that  he  would  not  have  told  it  at  all  had  it  not  been 
necessary  to  protect  this  defendant. 

Next  is  Bill  Davis.  Davis  says  he  heard  this  threat.  Now, 
don't  forget  another  thing  as  we  go  along,  and  that  is  that 
while  they  are  building  up  all  this  information  within  the 
Western  Federation  of  Miners  as  to  the  knowledge  of  these 
threats  and  that  Orchard  was  going  to  kill  Steunenberg,  that 


53 

the  Western  Federation  of  Miners,  from  the  30th  day  of  De- 
cember, 1905,  until  the  18th  day  of  February,  1906,  was  in.  ab- 
solute possession  of  evidence  which  would  have  enabled  the 
State  to  hang  Harry  Orchard,  and  yet  never  breathed  it  to 
anybody.  Is  this  a  criminal  organization?  But  Davis  is  a  very 
cool,  calm  fellow.  He  is  a  man  who  can  see  a  train  go  through 
town  in  daylight  with  a  thousand  men  on  it  armed  and  masked 
and  feel  no  interest  in  the  subject  whatever.  He  is  very  cool 
and  calm — Grant  was  not  a  circumstance  in  war  compared  to 
what  Davis  would  have  been  had  he  had  a  chance.  It  is  said 
that  when  Grant  went  to  Vicksburg  he  was  very  much  dis- 
turbed as  to  what  would  happen  when  he  got  there ;  but  such 
an  event  would  not  discompose  Davis — Davis,  who  was  not 
at  the  Bunker  Hill  mine  at  all,  who  went  up  to  work  at  the 
Hercules  a  few  days  after,  who  changed  his  name  and  took  to 
the  tall  timber.  Davis  says  that  Orchard  told  him  that  he  was 
going  to  kill  Steunenberg.  When  did  he  make  known  this 
fact?  After  you  listen  to  his  testimony  with  reference  to  his 
actions  upon  the  29th  of  April  how  much  consideration  can 
you  give  to  his  evidence  whenever  it  is  of  importance  to  the 
defense?  Reason  it  out  for  yourselves,  make  up  your  minds 
whether  he  is  interested  or  whether  he  is  not,  and  whether  he 
would  suit  his  testimony  to  the  case. 

But,  they  say,  would  Mr.  Ramey  lie?  What  reason  had  he 
for  lying?  I  am  inclined  to  think  that  he  did  not  lie.  I  do  not 
believe  that  he  would  wilfully  and  knowingly  state  a  false- 
hood. I  do  not  know  the  man,  but  he  appears  well  and  dis- 
interested. He  says  that  Orchard  undertook  to  sell  him  this 
claim  in  the  spring  of  1899.  That  might  be  entirely  true  ex- 
cept as  to  the  date.  For  instance,  if  we  should  take  the  date 
of  1898,  at  the  time  he  was  actually  trying  to  sell  it  and  did 
sell  it,  there  would  be  nothing  strange  in  the  fact  that  he  was 


54 

attempting  to  sell  it  to  Ramey.  It  is  very  probable  that  as  to 
that  Mr.  Ramey  has  gotten  his  dates  mixed.  There  is  nothing 
strange  about  the  proposition  that  a  man  should  get  a  date 
mixed  when  there  was  nothing  to  charge  his  mind  with  the 
particular  time,  and  especially  when  he  had  not  thought  about 
it  for  six  years.  It  seems  that  Orchard  came  along  on  horse- 
back and  had  a  few  minutes'  conversation  with  Ramey  and 
passed  on.  Without  any  memorandum  made  at  the  time  or 
any  reason  to  hold  it  in  memory  he  now  thinks  it  was  in  1899. 
But  think  how  improbable  that  is  in  view  of  the  fact  that  at  the 
very  time  he  was  trying  to  sell  to  Ramey  there  was  a  deed  on 
record  in  Shoshone  County,  where  Ramey  lived,  showing  that 
it  had  been  sold  for  a  year.  I  apprehend,  therefore,  that  Mr. 
Ramey  was  simply  not  interested  in  this  matter  and  was  mis- 
taken as  to  the  date,  and  the  same  logic  and  the  same  rule 
would  apply  precisely  to  Mr.  and  Mrs.  Gill.  We  will  assume, 
also,  that  they  are  telling  what  they  believed  to  be  the  truth ; 
but  we  can  not  conceive  of  the  fact  that  they  would  undertake 
to  buy  an  interest  in  a.  property  to  which  the  title  had  passed 
more  than  a  year  before  and  at  a  time  when  the  vendee  was  in 
possession  and  working  the  mine.  There  is  only  one  way  to 
reconcile  the  statement  of  these  people  with  honesty  of  pur- 
pose and  that  is  upon  the  theory  that  they  were  mistaken  as 
to  the  dates. 

I  think  Mr.  Coates  said  something  about  Orchard's  threats 
also ;  and  I  want  to  say  something  about  Mr.  Coates.  He  has 
some  peculiar  ideas  and  I  don't  know  just  exactly  how  far  he 
injected  them  in  this  evidence.  I  do  not  believe  that  Mr. 
Coates  is  entitled  to  the  eulogy  which  Darrow  gave  him.  I 
am  judging  him  by  his  testimony  and  that  alone. 

His  testimony  shows  that  in  1905  Orchard  went  to  Wallace 
and  met  Coates;  that  he  had  met  him  before  in  Den- 


55 

ver;  that  he  had  a  conversation  with  him  very  short- 
ly after  he  arrived  in  Wallace  about  stealing  Paulson's 
child.  Now  watch  Coates'  action  in  this  matter.  It 
is  very  peculiar  that  Orchard  was  so  free  to  go  to  any  West- 
ern Federation  of  Miners'  officer,  or  to  any  friend  of  the  West- 
ern Federation  of  Miners,  or  their  associates,  to  talk  of  crime, 
but  he  did.  Paulson  was  Coates'  neighbor — he  lived  just 
across  the  street  and  likely  the  little  child  played  about  his 
yard.  Here  is  a  man  who  goes  to  him  and  seriously  states 
that  he  is  going  to  steal  the  child.  It  did  not  make  much 
of  an  impression  upon  Coates  at  first.  That  is  peculiar  also. 
But  it  didn't  disturb  him  a  great  deal.  Orchard  came  back 
the  next  day  and  took  up  the  matter  again  about  stealing  the 
child,  and  then  Coates  seemed  to  think  of  the  matter  more 
seriously  and  came  to  the  conclusion  that  he  would  have  to  do 
something.  He  did  not  call  up  by  'phone  and  tell  Mr.  Paulson 
to  look  out  for  his  children,  that  there  was  a  kidnaper  in  town ; 
he  did  not  go  to  an  officer  and  say,  "Here  is  a  suspect  from 
Colorado,  a  hyena  in  here  to  steal  children ;"  like  Easterly  and 
Davis,  he  kept  it  to  himself.  This  in  itself  makes  me  think  that 
there  is  something  in  it  of  corroboration  of  Orchard's  testi- 
mony, who  testified  that  Coates  said  that  he  would  take  part 
of  the  money.  But  finally,  according  to  Coates,  he  said  to 
Orchard,  "If  you  steal  that  child  I  will  get  out  a  special  edi- 
tion of  my  paper;  I  will  denounce  you;"  the  child  will  be  gone 
— the  horse  will  be  stolen,  but  I  will  lock  the  door,  and  a 
special  edition  of  my  paper  will  look  fine  on  the  streets  of 
Wallace.  Perhaps  Paulson  would  have  been  perfectly  willing 
to  pay  for  that  special  edition  if  it  could  have  been  brought 
out  before  the  child  was  stolen.  A  day  of  two  afterwards 
Orchard  comes  along  again  and  says,  "I  want  to  get  five  hun- 
dred dollars  from  Paulson.  I  want  you  to  tell  him  a  lie  if 


56 

he  asks  you  certain  things  about  our  stock  deal."  It  was  a 
lie,  was  it  not?  What  does  Coates  say?  Does  he  say,  "You 
miserable  rascal ;  you  who  were  going  to  steal  his  child ;  you 
now  want  his  money;  I  will  go  tell  Paulson?"  Does  he?  No, 
No.  He  says,  according  to  his  own  testimony,  "All  right,  I 
will  tell  him,  if  he  asks  me,  what  you  want  me  to."  Is  not 
that  his  testimony  ?  So  Orchard  goes  down  at  once  to  the 
unsuspecting  Paulson.  Orchard  says  he  is  going  to  get  five 
hundred  dollars  and  Coates  does  not  object  as  to  the  amount. 
But  Orchard's  heart  failed  him  and  he  only  got  three  hundred ; 
Coates'  heart  stood  the  test.  Orchard  came  back  up  the 
street,  pulled  out  the  check  and  showed  it  to  Coates  and  told 
him  that  he  had  the  money.  Now  Coates  knew  all  about  that 
transaction — that  disreputable  transaction  upon  the  part  of 
Orchard.  Orchard  found  Mr.  Coates  listening  to  the  child 
stealing  story,  and  we  find  him  in  a  little  dirty  conspiracy  aid- 
ing, abetting  and  assisting  Orchard  in  getting  money  from 
Paulson,  his  neighbor.  That  is  the  view  which  we  get  of  Mr. 
Coates  from  his  own  testimony.  How  much  dependence  can 
you  put  in  his  evidence?  After  Orchard  had  told  him  that  he 
was  going  to  steal  the  child  and  after  he  had  secured  the 
money  through  the  connivance  of  Coates,  does  Coates  break 
with  this  criminal?  Certainly  not.  Orchard  goes  to  Salt 
Lakes,  writes  back  to  Coates  and  they  still  continue  to  do  busi- 
ness together.  It  really  seems  to  me  that  this  man  is  not  en- 
titled to  the  eulogy  of  Mr.  Darrow.  There  was  something 
shady  in  these  transactoins.  He  was  conniving  with  Orchard 
in  these  matters,  and  I  have  no  doubt  in  the  world  but  what 
if  that  child  had  been  stolen  he  would  really  have  gotten  out 
an  extra  edition  of  his  paper. 

But   Coates   is  one  of  the   parties   who  said   that  Orchard 
stated  to  him  that  he  was  going  to  kill  Steunenberg.     Did  he 


come  forward  with  this  evidence  at  the  time  the  State  was 
searching  for  evidence  against  Orchard — an  ex-Lieutenant 
Governor,  reading  the  newspapers  daily,  publishing  a  news- 
paper— did  he  say  anything  about  his  information,  so  import- 
ant to  the  State? 

Next  they  introduce  a  witness  by  the  name  of  Day — Miss 
Lottie  Day,  or  Mrs.  Lottie  Day,  I  don't  know  which. 

Mr.  Darrow:  I  think  it  is  mistress.  You  people  found  her 
first,  however. 

Mr.  Borah:  I  don't  know  whether  she  was  single  or  mar- 
ried at  the  time  Mr.  Stone  found  her. 

Now,  Mrs.  Day  tells  us  of  a  talk  which  took  place  down  in 
the  boarding  house,  in  the  Belmont  rooming  house,  in  Den- 
ver. I  am  simply  going  to  call  your  attention  to  some  of  the 
circumstances  surrounding  that  particular  conversation.  It 
seems  that  Orchard  and  Lottie  were  sitting  upon  a  lounge, 
talking  in  a  rather  confidential  way — when  this  confidence 
first  arose  does  not  appear  in  this  case.  But  Orchard  was  there 
on  the  lounge  with  Mrs.  Day  talking  over  matters  of.  a  confi- 
dential nature,  and  she  says  that  he  told  her  that  he  was  once 
in  love;  an  altogether  probable  proposition  from  one  stand- 
point, and  unsupposable  from  another.  They  had  a  conver- 
sation in  which  Orchard  said  that  he  had  owned  at  one  time 
an  interest  in  the  Hercules  mine  but  that  Governor  Steunen- 
berg's  action  in  some  way  caused  him  to  lo.se  his  interest  and 
he  was  going  to  kill  him.  This  conversation  continues  until 
Mr.  Haywood  appears  upon  the  scene.  She  testifies  with 
equal  positiveness  that  Haywood  and  Orchard — this  friend 
of  hers — were  there  together,  and  that  Haywood  and  Orchard 
went  off  into  a  private  room  to  have  a  conversation.  She  is 
their  witness.  But  that  part  of  the  story  they  say  is  untrue. 
Haywood  denies  it.  She  was  just  as  positive  of  one  statement 


58 

as  the  other;  it  was  all  one  transaction — it  was  all  one  con- 
versation— it  was  all  one  scene,  and  Mrs.  Day  was  just  as 
positive  as  to  the  fact  that  Haywood  was  there  and  that  he 
went  into  the  room  with  Orchard  as  she  was  that  Orchard  had 
been  whispering  in  her  ears  something  about  his  early  love. 
But  Haywood  says  that  this  part  of  her  statement  is  false; 
that  he  didn't  go  into  the  room  with  Orchard.  Well,  as  I  said 
a  few  moments  ago,  in  view  of  the  fact  that  Mrs.  Day  is  a  lady 
— at  least  a  woman  and  I  presume  a  lady — in  view  of  the  fact 
that  they  have  shown  that  she  was  mistaken  in  a  very  import- 
ant and  very  controlling  feature  of  this  evidence,  in  view  of 
the  fact  that  they  have  brought  her  here  and  impeached  her 
themselves,  I  leave  it  for  this  jury  to  say  whether  or  not  this 
testimony  of  Mrs.  D)ay  impeaches  the  deed  which  had  been  re- 
corded a  year  before  Orchard  ever  heard  of  Steunenberg.  You 
remember  that  Lottie  said,  when  Orchard  was  telling  her 
this,  "Oh,  forget  it,  forget  it !"  I  will  apply  the  same  phrase 
to  Mrs.  Day  and  pass  her  on. 

There  is  one  other  witness  in  regard  to  this  matter  of 
threats  whose  testimony  I  .want  to  refer  to.  I  can  not,  for 
want  of  time,  go  through  all  this  line  of  testimony  but  I  want 
to  call  attention  to  this  one  witness — General  Eugene  Engley, 
the  ex-Attorney  General  of  the  State  of  Colorado.  I  do  not 
care  to  refer  to  the  fact  that  he  was  Attorney  General  under 
Waite's  administration.  That  he  was  an  interested  witness 
you  can  have  no  doubt;  that  he  was  here  to  make  a  speech 
from  the  standpoint  of  the  defendant's  interest  you  can  have 
no  doubt;  that  there  was  not  power  enough  in  the  Court  or 
myself  or  the  attorneys  for  the  defense  to  stop  him  you  can 
have  no  doubt;  that  he  was  deeply  concerned,  and  manifested 
it,  there  can  be  no  question.  He  says  that  Orchard  made  a 
somewhat  similar  statement  to  him.  Now,  above  all  men,  I 


59 

want  to  know  where  Engley  was  with  his  information  from 
the  30th  day  of  December,  1905,  when  this  man's  name  was 
sent  broadcast  over  the  land  as  a  suspect,  until  the  18th  day  of 
February,  1906.  Why  did  he  not  come  forward  with  his  in- 
formation ?  The  ex-Attorney  General  of  the  State  of  Colorado, 
who  would  be  supposed  to  be  in  favor  of  punishing  crime, 
had  in  his  knowledge  the  fact  that  this  man  had  a  personal 
grudge  against  Frank  Steunenberg — had  expressed  it  to  Eng- 
ley, and  Engley  believed  he  was  going  to  murder  him.  He  had 
this  evidence  within  his  possession  during  all  this  time  and 
yet  never  conveyed  his  information  to  the  officers  of  the  law 
nor  in  any  way  assisted  the  uncovering  of  the  most  dastardly 
crime  ever  committed  in  this  State.  But  Engley  says  on  the 
witness  stand,  "I  had  this  evidence  and  I  gave  it  to  no  man;  I 
give  it  to  you  for  the  first  time  in  this  case."  Perhaps  there 
was  some  reason  for  this  withholding  which  he  did  not  make 
known  to  us.  But  I  just  want  to  say  one  thing  in  passing,  be- 
cause we  are  entitled  to  take  all  these  things  into  considera- 
tion in  weighing  the  effect  of  a  witness's  evidence.  General 
Engley  does  not  believe  in  law.  He  does  not  believe  in  the 
orderly  affairs  of  society.  He  thinks  that  everything  is  made 
wrong  and  that  Engley  ought  to  make  it  over.  You  remem- 
ber I  asked  him  if  he  was  a  Socialist,  and  he  said,  "If  you  re- 
fer to  the  fact  of  a  man's  belief  in  the  initiative  and  referen- 
dum, in  the  imperative  mandate,  in  the  controlling  of  the 
trusts,  in  the  control  of  railroads  by  law,  then  I  am  not  a  So- 
cialist; but  if  you  refer  to  the  creed  which  would  take  this 
earth  out  of  the  hands  of  the  few  who  have  wrongfully  taken 
possession  of  it  and  turn  it  over  to  the  many  to  whom  it  be- 
longs, then  you  may  write  we  down  as  a  Socialist."  Socialist ! 
He  is  an  anarchist.  He  is  not  a  Socialist  in  any  sense  of  the 
word.  He  believes  in  turning  society  upside  down;  arraying 


60 

class  against  class,  brother  against  brother.  He  believes  in 
saying  to  the  man  who  has  his  home  or  his  ranch  which  he 
has  earned  by  his  industry  and  frugality,  "Give  it  up  and  get 
out;  turn  it  over  to  the  man  who  did  not  earn  it;  turn  it  over 
to  the  man  who  may  never  have  worked  a  day  in  his  life."  I 
am  not  surprised  that  the  State  of  Colorado  has  had  hell  with- 
in its  borders  within  the  last  ten  years  when  its  prominent 
men  preach  such  doctrine.  When  men  talk  and  preach  such 
doctrine  what  do  you  think  the  man  down  in  the  mine  will  do, 
what  do  you  think  that  he  is  likely  to  do?  When  an  ex-At- 
torney General  of  a  State  goes  into  a  court  in  a  civilized  com- 
munity, in  an  orderly  conducted  community,  and  preaches  his 
infamous  doctrine  it  is  time  that  decent  men  place  the  brand 
of  infamy  upon  his  brow  and  send  him  forth,  as  he  is,  an  out- 
law. He  speaks  of  philosophical  anarchy.  You  might  just 
as  well  talk  about  philosophical  hell.  From  his  standpoint  it 
is  one  and  the  same  thing. 

We  have  reviewed  briefly  some  of  the  evidence  with  refer- 
ence to  Orchard's  personal  motive.  If  he  did  not  have  a  per- 
sonal motive  in  going  to  Caldwell,  then  who  had  a  motive  in 
sending  him  there?  In  order  to  answer  this  you  must  go 
back  to  the  29th  of  April,  1899.  Upon  that  day  there  was 
trouble  in  the  Coeur  d'Alenes.  The  Bunker  Hill  and  Sullivan 
mine  was  destroyed  and  Jim  Cheyne,  a  scab,  was  murdered. 
A  day  or  two  afterwards  Governor  Steunenberg,  as  Governor, 
called  the  troops  into  the  Coeur  d'Alenes.  A  few  days  later  a 
bull  pen,  so  called,  or  an  improvised  prison,  was  erected.  Hun- 
dreds of  miners  were  placed  in  that  bull  pen  or  improvised 
prison.  A  permit  system  was  established  under  which  a  man 
must  disclaim  allegiance  to  the  Western  Federation  in  order 
to  get  work.  Afterwards  one  of  the  leading  members  of  the 
Western  Federation  was  convicted  of  murder.  There  was  a 


61 

deep  seated  hatred  and  feeling  arose  against  Governor  Steun- 
enberg  by  reason  of  these  matters.  There  was  a  feeling  upon 
the  part  of  the  Federation  that  he  was  their  pronounced  enemy, 
their  uncompromising  foe,  and  this  feeling  continued  down  to 
the  day  of  his  death.  It  is  not  for  me  to  argue  here  today 
whether  Governor  Steunenberg  was  right  in  all  his  acts  or 
not;  I  am  not  going  to  argue  that  he  was  not  sometimes  in 
error.  That  is  immaterial  so  far  as  this  case  is  concerned.  I 
have  my  convictions  about  the  matter,  but  such  is  not  evi- 
dence and  you  care  nothing  about  it.  The  fact  remains  that 
he  went  there,  that  he  did  these  things  mentioned  and  that  he 
was  considered  as  being  unfriendly  in  every  respect  to  the 
Western  Federation,  and  that  he  was  looked  upon,  from  the 
day  he  called  the  soldiers  into  that  camp  until  the  day  that 
he  died,  and  even  thereafter,  as  the  mortal  enemy  of  this  or- 
ganization. The  bull  pen  theory  was  his ;  the  permit  system 
was  in  a  large  measure  his;  and  the  troubles  in  Colorado  did 
not  cause  this  long,  constant  hatred  to  die,  did  not  cause  them 
to  forget  their  troubles  in  the  Coeur  d'Alenes,  but  rather  ac- 
centuated their  feeling.  All  that  has  been  proven  here  in 
this  case  with  reference  to  the  Colorado  situation  rather 
strengthens  the  theory  of  the  State  and  shows  the  intense  and 
abiding  hatred  for  Governor  Steunenberg — shows  that  the  mo- 
tive continued  from  the  time  of  the  troubles  in  the  Coeur 
d'Alenes  until  the  time  of  his  death. 

I  am  going  to  read  at  this  time  from  the  magazine  called 
the  Western  Federation  of  Miners  Magazine.  The  first  ar- 
ticle is  dated  in  1901  and  the  other  articles  are  dated  in  1905 
and  1906.  We  want  to  see  whether  or  not  this  hatred  existed, 
whether  it  prevailed  at  the  time  of  Steunenberg's  death.  We 
will  find  from  these  articles  that  he  was  regarded  as  a  foe, 
as  one  who  was  swayed  by  the  capitalistic  class,  as  the  corrupt 


62 

representative  of  Rockefeller,  as  the  representative  of  all  of 
those  who  have  been  denounce!  here  in  this  court  room  by 
counsel.  This  article  says :  "How  this  villian  has  risen  in 
four  years  from  editor  of  a  weekly  paper  on  the  Snake  River 
desert  to  a  wealthy  sheep  owner,  mine  owner  and  stock 
holder!  Where  did  he  get  the  money  to  make  these  invest- 
ments except  from  the  mine  owners,  whose  lackey  he  was 
from  the  day  he  was  elected  Governor." 

The  same  old  story  of  the  mine  owners !  "Whose  lackey  he 
was  from  the  day  he  was  elected  Governor."  He  stood  in  the 
same  class  with  Peabody.  He  stood  in  the  same  .class  with 
Bell.  He  stood  in  the  same  class  with  Goddard.  He  stood  in 
the  same  class  with  Gabbert;  the  same  class  with  Hearne ;  the 
same  class  with  the  fourteen  poor  fellows  who  were  sent  into 
eternity  upon  the  6th  day  of  June,  1904.  That  is,  he  was  a 
man  who  was  regarded  as  the  enemy  of  organized  labor.  Let 
us  separate  right  here  this  proposition  of  individual  hatred 
and  the  individual  ill  will  of  the  members  of  this  organization 
from  the  hatred  of  the  organization,  as  it  were.  It  was  a 
hatred  arising  out  of  what  Mr.  Darrow  is  pleased  to  call  an 
industrial  warfare.  You  will  determine  whether  or  not  Mr. 
Haywood's  ill  will  was  a  personal  ill  will  or  whether  it  arose 
by  reason  of  his  being  at  the  head  of  this  organization.  It  was 
an  industrial  war  from  their  point  of  view  and  that  is  the 
reason  why  they  looked  upon  this  man  with  such  bitter  feel- 
ing and  why  the  hatred  never  died — the  war  was  not  over. 

Again  reading:  "Farewell  Steunenberg,  once  Governor  of 
Idaho !  Your  political  career  is  ended.  You  have  done  every 
thing  within  your  power  to  send  the  men  who  made  you  Gov- 
ernor to  the  penitentiary,  and  worse  than  all,  you  stand  before 
the  world  a  convicted  perjurer  before  a  congressional  investi- 
gating committee.  But  your  cheek  has  long  since  lost  the 


63 

blush  of  shame  and  your  damnable  deeds  will  never  appeal  to 
your  manhood,  for  such  you  never  possessed."  How  insignifi- 
cant the  feeling  of  Harry  Orchard !  His  Hercules  mine  for- 
feiture and  keeping  alive  the  passions  of  hatred,  compared  with 
this  unforgiving,  unforgetting,  unrelenting  hatred  of  the  of- 
ficials of  this  organization  against  Frank  Steunenberg!  And 
why?  Simply  because  he  could  not  conceive  it  to  be  his  duty 
as  Governor  to  sit  still  and  see  a  thousand  men  go  into  a 
neighboring  town  armed  and  masked,  destroy  property  and 
commit  murder.  He  might  have  erred  in  the  manner  in  which 
he  undertook  to  take  care  of  the  State's  right,  but  he  was 
called  into  action  and  he  did  his  duty  nobly  as  he  understood 
it.  He  acted  according  to  the  lights  which  were  before  him 
and  there  is  no  question  but  what  these  men  who  opposed 
such  things  understood  that  Frank  Steunenberg  was  in  unre- 
lenting opposition  to  their  methods.  No  wonder,  as  Orchard 
says,  they  said  to  him,  "Kill  him,  kill  him,  not  alone  for  what 
he  has  done ;  kill  him  that  these  men  in  Colorado  and  else- 
where who  oppose  the  Western  Federation  of  Miners  may 
know  that  we  do  not  forget  and  that  they  are  living  a  living 
death."  Hatred  !  Corroboration  !  Motive  !  How  could  there 
be  more  conclusive  proof  of  all  these  things? 

I  read  again :  ''Your  sole  ambition  was  money,  which  in 
your  estimation  was  superior  to  honor ;  but  you  are  gone  and 
upon  your  political  tombstone  shall  be  inscribed  in  indelible 
words,  'Here  lies  a  hireling  and  a  traitor/'  Why?  Why 
traitor?  Did  he  desert  the  State?  Did  he  violate  his  oath? 
No.  He  went  to  the  Coeur  d'Alenes  with  the  soldiers  because 
there  was  no  other  power  by  means  of  which  he  could  uphold 
the  law  and  maintain  order.  He  did  one  thing,  he  stopped  as- 
sassination in  the  Coeur  d'Alenes.  He  restored  order,  and  I 
will  leave  it  to  you  whether  or  not  there  was  a  necessity  for 


64 

his  action  when  a  thousand  men  could  get  together  and  violate 
law  and  commit  murder  in  the  open  light  of  day.  I  will  leave 
it  to  you  if  drastic  measures  were  not  necessary  in  order  to 
preserve  the  integrity  of  the  State. 

But  what  did  they  think  of  this  man  when  he  was  resting 
in  his  simple  home  in  Caldwell — sleeping  his  last  sleep  ?  Seven 
years  had  passed.  He  had  gone  into  private  life.  He  was  mar- 
tyred, blown  to  pieces  at  his  gate  even  as  he  was  looking  into 
his  lighted  home  on  that  holiday  night.  Everything  connected 
with  the  crime,  every  surrounding  feature  of  the  awful  scene 
would  naturally  compel  men  to  forget  all  past  differences  and 
bury  all  past  hatreds.  Even  if  he  had  been  an  enemy  any  one 
would  have  naturally  said,  "L,et  us  forget  and  forgive.  Per- 
haps he  erred,  but  let  us  bury  his  error  in  the  grave  with  all 
that  is  mortal  of  him."  No,  no.  Here  is  what  they  say: 
"Former  Governor  Frank  Steunenberg  of  Idaho  met  his  death 
last  Saturday  evening  at  his  home  at  Caldwell,  Idaho.  The 
press  dispatches  report  his  dissolution  via  the  bomb  route." 
That  is  the  eulogy  of  the  Western  Federation  of  Miners 
passed  upon  Frank  Steunenberg  at  an  hour  when  the  world 
stood  aghast  at  the  awful  crime.  "The  press  dispatches  re- 
port his  dissolution  via  the  bomb  route."  My  God!  What 
can  be  said  in  answer  to  this  awful,  unappeasable  hatred  ?  You 
might  well  suspect  that  the  man  who  wrote  that  article  under 
those  circumstances  was  a  man  who  was  capable  of  nurturing 
within  his  heart  the  desire  of  murder — and  such  turned  out  to 
be  true.  The  man  who  wrote  that  article,  who  boasted  of  it, 
whose  eyes  gleamed  with  gratification  when  he  was  asked 
about  it,  turned  out  indeed  to  be  a  murderer.  He  expressed 
the  sentiments  and  reflected  the  views  of  the  officers  of  the 
Western  Federation  of  Miners. 

But  I  read  again.    Let  us  get  down  to  the  roots  of  this  hell- 


65 

ish  hatred :  "A  chap  by  the  name  of  Steunenberg  was  blown 
up  by  a  bomb  at  Caldwell,  Idaho,  on  December  30th.  He 
was  Governor  of  that  State  some  few  years  since  and  attained 
considerable  of  a  reputation  as  the  inventor  of  that  revered 
American  institution  known  as  the  'bull-pen.'  The  bomb  had 
been  carelessly  left,  presumably  by  some  Russian  revolution- 
ist, in  the  gateway  leading  to  the  Steunenberg  habitation. 
Such  carelessness  should  be  frowned  down.  The  gate  was 
completely  wrecked." 

This  is  the  eulogy !  No  motive  !  No  feeling  of  hatred  !  And 
yet  counsel  for  the  defense  say  that  these  things  had  been  for- 
gotten; that  Coeur  d'Alene  was  a  thing  of  the  past;  Steunen- 
berg was  in  private  life.  Again  this  magazine  says :  "The 
organs  of  the  capitalistic  class  recognize  in  the  death  of  Steun- 
enberg the  loss  of  a  man  who  was  faithful  and  loyal  to  their 
interests.  The  history  of  the  Idaho  strike  of  1899  is  still  fresh 
in  the  memory  of  the  membership  of  organized  labor  through- 
out the  country."  Still  fresh  !  "The  brutality  and  barbarities 
that  characterized  the  official  acts  of  those  who  were  clothed 
with  power  and  backed  by  authority  of  law  will  never  be  for- 
gotten during  the  life  of  the  present  generation.  The  military 
stockade  or  'bull-pen,'  where  hundreds  of  men  were  goaded 
and  tortured  to  the  limit  of  human  endurance,  could  have 
no  other  effect  than  to  kindle  in  the  hearts  of  many  the  flame 
of  hatred  that  would  burn  as  long  as  there  lived  a  victim  that 
bore  the  scars  of  the  conflict  of  the  year  1899/'  and  so  forth 
and  so  on. 

Gentlemen  of  the  jury,  these  are  the  words  of  the  men  who 
were  running  that  paper.  The  defendant  was  paying  for  it; 
the  Western  Federation  officials  wre  sustaining  it.  It  was 
their  voice  speaking  to  the  world  over  the  grave  of  Frank 
Steunenberg  and  it  carries  the  poisoned  venom  of  the  settled 


66 

hatred  of  six  years.  We  know,  just  as  well  as  we  know  that 
we  are  trying  this  case,  that  out  of  the  conditions  of  1899 
arose  this  hatred  for  Governor  Steunenberg,  and  that  it  never 
died ;  that  he  was  never  forgiven ;  that  it  lived  and  would  live 
as  long  as  lived  any  individual  who  was  acquainted  with  that 
situation.  Here  is  the  motive ;  here  is  the  controlling,  impell- 
ing, guiding  power  which  sent  Harry  Orchard,  armed  with 
murderous  weapons,  to  the  city  of  Caldwell. 

This  crime  was  born  of  no  ordinary  conditions.  You  must 
not  look  for  the  motive  among  the  ordinary  passions  which 
hold  sway  in  the  heart  of  common  malefactors.  Ordinarily, 
when  we  look  for  the  motive  which  impels  to  the  commission 
of  crime,  we  search  the  dark  recesses  of  the  human  heart,  to 
find  somewhere  in  its  foul  chambers,  crouched  and  coiled  and 
hissing,  the  serpent  .of  jealousy,  greed,  personal  hatred — some 
vile  passion  long  since  dead  to  the  voice  of  humanity.  Do  not 
permit  yourselves  to  be  led  by  adroit  counsel  into  searching 
there  and  there  alone  for  motive.  You  will  not  find  it.  You 
must  enter  another  domain,  a  field  of  crime  where  fanaticism 
and  violence  walk  hand  in  hand  under  the  red  flag;  where 
law  and  its  blessings  are  cursed ;  where  order  and  its  fruits 
are  disowned ;  where  the  sacred  flag  of  the  free  is  lowered,  as 
it  was  a  few  days  ago  in  an  eastern  city,  to  the  red  flag  of 
blood  and  death — there  you  will  find  the  real  motive  for  this 
crime.  Revenge?  Yes.  But  it  was  the  revenge  of  those  only 
who  hate  order  and  law,  who  hate  the  restraint  of  government, 
who  hate  the  man  who  maintains  government  and  stands  by 
his  official  oath.  Understand  this  and  you  will  understand 
why  it  was  decreed  that  though  six  years  had  passed,  the  man 
who  restrained  violence  in  the  Coeur  d'Alenes  was  doomed  to 
die. 

We  find,  therefore,  that  Harry  Orchard  left  the  city  of  Den- 


67 

VIT.  left  tlu-  home  of  the  defendant,  went  to  Caldwell.  the 
home  of  the  man  upon  whom  rested  the  long-nursed  hatred 
of  this  organization;  that  he  left  carrying  a  shot  gun  and  a 
dynamite  bomb;  left  with  murder  in  his  heart.  We  find  that  he 
had  not  personal  motive,  but  that  he  left  the  immediate  asso- 
ciation of  the  officials  of  an  organization  who  seemed  deter- 
mined to  never  forgive  or  forget  Frank  Steunenberg,  who 
hated  him  with  a  chronic  hate.  He  arrives  at  Caldwell,  and 
what  happens  next?  He  immediately  commences  his  efforts  to 
locate  Steunenberg;  he  does  not  locate  him  at  once;  he  is  un- 
able to  carry  out  his  designs  immediately.  Mr.  Richardson 
thinks  that  there  is  considerable  in  the  fact  that  he  did  not  kill 
Steunenberg  at  once.  He  says  if  these  men,  the  Western  Fed- 
eration officials,  desired  his  death  that  Orchard  should  have  ac- 
complished it  at  once.  Not  speedy  enough !  There  is  always 
a  condition  to  murder  and  that  is  that  it  shall  be  accomplished 
under  such  circumstances  that  the  murderer  may  likely  get 
away.  This  was  always  a  part  of  the  plan  of  Orchard ;  he  was 
an  expert  at  that,  and  he  chose  his  time,  the  circumstances 
and  conditions  with  that  in  view.  It  seems  to  me  that  in  the 
face  of  this  record  there  ought  not  to  be  much  complaint 
against  Orchard  upon  the  ground  of  speediness  and  efficiency. 
But  he  did  not  locate  Steunenberg,  and  so  he  passed  on.  After 
visiting  Nampa  and  Caldwell  he  took  his  ticket  and  went  on 
down  to  Portland,  then  to  Seattle,  then  he  wandered  over  to 
Wallace  and  there  he  came  in  touch  with  whom?  With  Jack 
Simpkins.  Jack  Simpkins,  the  representative  of  the  Western 
Federation  of  Miners  for  the  State  of  Idaho.  They  soon  get 
together  for  some  reason.  Orchard  always  gravitated  toward 
the  officials  of  this  organization.  Wherever  Orchard  was  he 
was  always  in  contact  with  the  Western  Federation  of  Miners 
if  there  was  any  representative  of  that  organization  on  the 


68 

ground.  When  he  went  to  Cheyenne  he  met  Davis  and  Cope- 
ley  ;  when  he  went  to  San  Francisco  he  met  Copeley ;  when 
he  went  to  Caldwell  he  called  up  Easterly;  when  he  went  to 
Wallace  he  met  Jack  Simpkins;  wherever  he  is  he  finds  a 
Western  Federation  man  and  lays  his  plans  and  purposes  be- 
fore him.  He  meets  Jack  Simpkins,  and  what  do  they  do? 
I  will  pass  over  for  the  present  some  of  the  transactions  in 
Wallace. 

They  left  Wallace  and  went  to  St.  Joe ;  from  St.  Joe  to  Spo- 
kane— remember  now  this  is  not  Orchard's  testimony-,  it  is 
proven  by  other  witnesses — from  Spokane  to  Caldwell.  Re- 
member now  that  Jack  Simpkins  becomes  a  part  of  this  con- 
spiracy. It  does  not  make  any  difference  when  he  joined  it 
and  it  does  not  make  a  particle  of  difference  whether  the  par- 
ties at  Denver  sent  him  to  Simpkins  or  not.  Simpkins  had 
been  in  Colorado.  He  had  been  in  the  bull-pen.  He  was 
there,  says  Orchard,  when  they  were  talking  about  some  of 
the  murders  in  Colorado,  and  he  was  a  representative  of  this 
organization.  As  soon  as  business  begins  within  his  jurisdic- 
tion he  gets  in  touch  with  the  transaction.  He  has  now  met 
Simpkins,  and  Simpkins  and  Orchard  come  to  Caldwell.  I 
want  you  to  tell  me  why  this  co-conspirator  went  with  Orch- 
ard to  Caldwell.  Richardson  says  he  thinks  that  Simpkins 
went  down  in  that  country  to  attend  to  his  official  duties  and 
that  Orchard  inveigled  him  off  of  the  train.  Oh,  no!  The 
mine  owners  sent  him  down  there !  The  Pinkertons  inveigled 
him  off  of  the  train !  You  know  that  Jack  Simpkins  got  off 
that  train  because  he  knew  Harry  Orchard  and  knew  his  mis- 
sion. Now  why  do  I  say  that? 

Simpkins  goes  to  the  hotel.  With  whom?  With  Orchard. 
How  does  he  register?  He  registers  under  the  name  of  Sim- 
mons, not  Jack  Simpkins.  He  registered  under  an  assumed 


69 

name  with  Harry  Orchard  ?  No,  with  Tom  Hogan,  the  name 
which  Orchard  takes  for  the  emergency.  They  are  now  in 
the  city  of  Caldwell,  together,  with  no  ostensible,  legitimate 
purpose  or  business  on  earth — they  are  there  for  the  purpose 
of  crime.  The  very  fact  that  they  were  going  under  assumed 
names,  stopping  together,  occupying  the  same  room  in  this 
town  where  there  was  no  miners'  organization,  where  Gov- 
ernor Steunenberg  lived,  indicates  conclusively  that  they  were 
not  there  for  a  lawful  or  legitimate  purpose.  The  representa- 
tives of  a  great  labor  organization,  traveling  under  assumed 
names,  in  the  very  home  of  the  man  whom  the  organization 
hated  with  the  hate  of  hell,  in  the  home  of  the  man  who  had, 
as  they  believed,  injured  Simpkins  himself.  They  were  now 
together  at  the  home  of  Governor  Steunenberg,  to  whose 
home  Harry  Orchard  had  gone  direct  from  Denver,  carrying 
with  him  the  means  by  which  to  murder. 

Now,  gentlemen  of  the  jury,  I  want  you  to  watch  these  five 
men.  Here  is  Jack  Simpkins,  Harry  Orchard,  George  A.  Pet- 
tibone,  Charles  Moyer  and  William  D.  Haywood.  Watch  these 
five  men !  In  a  little  over  thirty  days  Frank  Steunenberg  is 
to  die.  Wratch  their  actions.  They  are  going  to  and  fro ;  they 
are  in  touch  with  one  another ;  you  will  find  out  pretty  soon 
whether  or  not  there  is  evidence  of  a  co-conspiracy  outside  of 
the  testimony  of  Harry  Orchard.  Watch  them!  Do  not  ex- 
pect the  State  to  prove  all  they  said,  but  watch  their  actions. 
One  conspirator  is  today  a  self-confessed  murderer;  another 
conspirator  a  fugitive  from  justice ;  another  conspirator  down 
here  in  jail  and  afraid  to  testify.  No  evidence?  What  more 
do  you  want?  Watch  them  from  this  time  because  we  have 
them  all  in  action.  They  are  in  touch  with  one  another;  they 
are  moving  on  to  the  scene.  This  man  is  doing  his  part  and 
that  man  is  doing  his,  and  you  will  find  a  complete  and  abso- 


70 

lute  conspiracy,  terminating  with  the  final  effort  of  these 
parties  to  save  Harry  Orchard  after  the  crime  is  committed. 

I  call  your  attention  to  the  fact  now  that  while  Orchard  and 
Simpkins  were  there  at  Caldwell  they  planted  a  bomb.  You 
will  remember,  according  to  his  testimony,  that  they  planted 
the  bomb  for  Steunenberg  the  first  time  about  the  16th  or  17th 
or  18th  of  November,  at  the  very  time  that  Simpkins,  a  mem- 
ber of  the  Exectuive  Board  was  at  Caldwell  under  an  as- 
sumed name ;  at  the  very  time  that  they  were  shadowing  the 
home  of  Steunenberg.  Mr.  Haywood  writes  a  letter  upon  that 
fell  same  day  to  Mrs.  Harry  Orchard  and  states  therein  a 
falsehood — at  the  very  time  that  the  representative  of  this 
great  organization  representing  Idaho,  the  co-defendant  of 
Mr.  Haywood,  now  a  fugitive  from  justice,  and  Harry  Orch- 
ard, the  self-confessed  murderer,  were  in  Caldwell  sleuthing 
upon  Governor  Steunenberg,  we  have  a  false  letter  written  by 
Mr.  Haywood  telling  Orchard's  wife  that  he  is  in  Alaska.  Do 
not  forget,  in  your  considerations,  that  in  this  conspiracy  the 
alibi  proposition  is  always  an  essential  ingredient  of  a  con- 
spiracy; and  do  not  forget  that  there  are  brains  behind  this 
conspiracy.  It  is  not  an  accident;  it  is  not  the  work  of  a 
blunderer. 

And  so  we  have  Orchard  up  in  Alaska,  according  to  the 
letter,  while  as  a  matter  of  fact  he  is  down  at  Caldwell,  the 
point  to  which  he  went  direct  from  the  home  of  Mr.  Haywood 
and  in  company  with  Jack  Simpkins,  a  co-official.  No  evi- 
dence? No  corroboration  ?  But  Jack  Simpkins  after  a  time 
becomes  uneasy,  leaves  Caldwell,  goes  to  Nampa,  a  distance 
of  ten  miles,  and  there  he  takes  his  right  name  on  the  reg- 
ister. He  is  Simmons  at  Caldwell,  where  Governor  Steunen- 
berg lives ;  he  is  Jack  Simpkins  at  Nampa,  ten  miles  away. 
Conscious  of  guilt !  Did  not  know  !  Inveigled  off  the  train  ! 


71 

Certainly  not.  He  is  a  moving  part  of  this  conspiracy.  But 
he  passes  on  and  goes  over  to  Silver  City  and  there  meets 
Bill  Easterly.  What  conversation  took  place  between  Jack 
Simpkins  and  Bill  Easterly  nobody  will  ever  know  because 
there  is  no  hope,  in  my  judgment,  of  catching  Jack,  and  Bill 
will  never  tell.  But  they  met  and  the  fact  that  Jack  had  been 
at  Caldwell  a  short  time  before  with  Orchard  was,  in  all  prob- 
ability, talked  over.  It  would  be  very  natural.  Simpkins 
leaves  Silver  City,  goes  back  to  Spokane,  takes  Orchard's  un- 
used railroad  ticket  and  goes  where?  He  goes  to  meet  the  oth- 
er members  of  this  conspiracy.  He  reaches  Denver,  and  there 
we  do  not  know  what  took  place,  but  we  do  know  this,  that 
Jack  Simpkins  had  been  at  Caldwell,  under  an  assumed  name, 
with  a  murderer,  and  had  just  left  Denver  a  short  time  before, 
and  we  are  entitled  to  reason,  under  the  circumstances,  as  to 
what  took  place  in  Denver.  We  know  he  went  direct  to  Den- 
ver, and  we  know  that  it  is  entirely  probable,  entirely  reason- 
able that  some  conversation  took  place.  What  next  takes 
place?  He  left  Denver.  What  happens  while  he  was  there? 
I  am  taking  this  up  a  little  out  of  its  line  because  it  illustrates. 
While  there  Jack  Simpkins  gets  the  large  sum  of  $213.  He 
thinks  this  is  too  much  for  a  Western  Federation  official'  to 
carry  home  so  he  takes  $113,  I  believe  it  was,  and  leaves  the 
other  $100  with  Mr.  Haywood  to  be  sent  to  him.  The  prob- 
ability of  these  things  is  just  as  much  a  matter  for  your  con- 
sideration as  the  actual  facts.  But  he  splits  up  his  $213  and 
gives  Mr.  Haywood  $100.  Why?  Well,  let's  see. 

Things  afterwards  discovered  makes  this  splitting  up  nec- 
essary. On  December  30th,  about  the  time  that  Frank  Steun- 
enberg  was  killed,  this  letter  which  I  hold  in  my  hand  was 
written.  "Friend  Tom."  Who  is  Tom?  How  did  the  writer 
know  who  Tom  was  and  that  Tom  was  in  Caldwell?  How 


72 

did  they  know,  when  Orchard  got  to  Caldwell,  whether  his 
name  was  Hogan  or  Green  or  Dempsey  or  Orchard,  or  what 
it  was?  Why,  they  knew  because  Simpkins  had  been  with 
him  and  had  reported  it  to  Denver.  How  did  this  party  who 
wrote  in  Denver  know  that  he  was  in  Caldwell  at  all?  He 
knew  it  because  Simpkins  had  been  there  with  him  and  had 
reported  it.  "Friend  Tom" — this  is  the  man  whom  Richard- 
son says  I  called  Harry,  a  fact  which  I  had  forgotten ;  they 
were  rather  familiar  at  this  time  themselves  with  this  mur- 
derer. "Friend  Tom:  Your  letter  received.  That  was  sent 
to  Jack  the  21st."  What  was  sent  to  Jack,  and  who  is  Jack? 
Jack  was  the  man  who  had  been  to  Caldwell.  And  who  was 
Orchard?  He  was  the  man  whom  Jack  had  left  at  Caldwell 
to  carry  out  this  murder.  Orchard  says  that  he  had  written  to 
Pettibone  to  send  him  $100.  So  there  comes  this  letter  back 
unsigned  which,  for  itself,  shows  that  the  man  who  wrote  it 
was  conscious  of  the  fact  that  he  was  in  touch  with  a  criminal ; 
and  in  the  letter  it  is  said,  "Friend  Tom :  That  was  sent  to 
Jack  the  21st,"  and  so  it  happened  that  we  go  searching  the 
bank  records  of  Denver  and  we  find  a  draft  dated  on  that 
same  day,  the  21st,  sent  to  Jack  Simpkins,  and  the  draft  is  sent 
by  William  D.  Haywood.  It  was  sent  as  a  Western  Federa- 
tion draft.  Here  is  a  piece  of  evidence  which  called  in  un- 
mistakable terms  for  the  presence  of  George  Pettibone  again. 
His  act,  you  will  remember,  as  a  member  of  this  conspiracy, 
binds  William  D.  Haywood.  Orchard  says  that  he  wrote  to 
Pettibone.  A  letter  comes  back  unsigned ;  Orchard  says  it 
was  Pettibone's  handwriting;  Pettibone,  by  his  silence,  ad- 
mits he  wrote  it.  Rather  than  undertake  to  explain  this  by 
Pettibone  they  will  permit  William  D.  Haywood  to  take  the 
chance  of  having  that  interpreted  against  him,  notwithstand- 
ing Darrow  says  that  Pettibone  is  a  friend  of  humanity  and 


73 

always  willing  to  sacrifice  himself  for  his  friends.  Mr.  Hay- 
wood  himself  had  just  as  well  kept  silent  as  to  keep  Petti- 
bone  silent.  Now  it  is  for  you  to  say,  under  all  the  circum- 
stances, whether  or  not  Jack  Simpkins  split  up  this  $213,  or 
whether  or  not  this  was  $100  sent  to  sustain  this  murderer. 
It  is  for  you  to  say,  in  view  of  that  letter,  what  that  $100  was 
for  and  at  whose  instigation  it  was  sent.  It  is  for  you  to" 
say,  in  view  of  all  the  circumstances,  whether  or  not  this  is 
evidence  which  not  only  tends  to  show,  but  shows,  the  con- 
nection of  the  defendant  with  this  crime.  They  say  that  this 
draft  was  not  cashed  until  January  4th.  Does  that  cut  any 
figure?  The  fact  that  it  did  not  reach  its  destination  does  not 
show  that  it  was  not  sent  at  Orchard's  suggestion.  The  mur- 
der was  pulled  off  sooner  than  anticipated,  but  in  view  of  the 
evidence  in  this  case,  that  Jack  Simpkins  gave  Fred  Miller 
$100  on  the  4th  of  January,  the  same  day  that  the  draft  shows 
it  was  cashed,  discloses,  I  apprehend,  that  instead  of  Orchard 
getting  it,  his  attorney  got  it.  It  all  went  to  the  same  fund 
for  the  same  purposes ;  driving  home  the  same  conclusions ; 
bringing  into  play  the  entire  combination  and  all  the  actors. 

Time  speeds  on  and  'Frank  Steunenberg  is  nearing  his  doom. 
Orchard  loafs  around  until  he  gets  an  opportunity.  Upon 
the  30th  of  December  he  goes  up  to  the  yard  gate,  puts  his 
bomb  in  place,  arranges  it  so  that  the  Governor  will  pull  it  off 
when  he  steps  inside  of  the  gate,  runs  down  the  street,  gets 
to  the  Saratoga  hotej  practically  by  the  time  the  awful  mur- 
der takes  place.  Experienced  criminal !  Killed,  murdered, 
blown  to  pieces — and  by  whom?  By  the  body  guard  of 
Charles  H.  Moyer;  by  the  old  associate  of  William  D.  Hay- 
wood;  by  the  man  who  a  few  weeks  before  left -Denver  armed 
with  a  shot  gun  and  a  bomb  by  the  assistance  of  George  Pet- 
tibone ;  by  the  man  who  goes  from  Spokane  to  Caldwell  with 


74 

Jack  Simpkins ;  by  the  man  who  traveled  with  Simpkins  in 
Caldwell  under  an  assumed  name !  Murdered  by  one  of  the 
co-conspirators  in  this  case !  A  man  who  had  been  in  touch 
with  them  for  four  months,  actively  engaged  in  this  very 
crime. 

Is  all  this  dependent  upon  the  testimony  of  Orchard?  Are 
not  these  facts  crowding  in  upon  you  and  forcing  you  to  the 
conclusion  that  back  of  him  somewhere  were  aiders  and  abet- 
tors, men  whr>  furnished  him  money,  men  who  furnished  him 
encouragement  and  comfort;  back  of  him  somewhere  was  a 
power  impelling  and  encouraging  him  to  crime?  There  is 
no  doubt  about  it.  Now,  did  the  mine  owners  do  this?  Did 
the  Pinkertons  fix  up  this  job?  Did  you  ever  hear  or  know 
of  a  more  complete  conspiracy  where  all  of  the  conspirators 
were  so  actively  engaged  in  the  crime  ? 

To  the  Assassin's  Rescue. 

This  crime  was  committed  the  night  of  December  30th,  1905 
— Saturday  night.  Upon  the  first  Orchard  was  taken  into 
custody.  Now  watch  these  conspirators  again.  How  quickly 
they  get  into  action!  What  would  you  expect  them  to  do? 
Knowing  as  you  do  that  they  had  cognizance  of  what  was 
going  on,  what  would  you  expect  them  to  do  immediately 
after  Orchard  was  intercepted?  If,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  Orch- 
ard was  there  to  commit  that  crime  and  if,  as  a  matter  of  fact, 
they  knew  that  he  was  there  for  that  purpose,  you  would  ex- 
pect then,  as  soon  as  he  was  apprehended,  to  undertake  to 
reach  him,  but  by  secret  methods.  You  would  expect  them 
to  get  busy,  and  to  get  busy  under  cover.  You  would  expect 
their  actions  in  trying  to  reach  him  would  be  such  as  indi- 
cated knowledge  of  crime.  You  would  expect  them  to  go 
to  Orchard's  rescue  before  he  asked  for  it.  Did  they  do  it? 


75 

• 

They  acted  in  complete  harmony  with  just  what  you  would 
expect  them  to  do. 

Upon  the  3d  day  of  January,  1906,  without  a  word  fn.in 
Tom  Hogan,  without  any  request  whatever  upon  his  part, 
and  before  the  Western  Federation  had  in  any  way  been  im- 
plicated in  this  matter,  we  find  a  telegram  sent  to  Hogan, 
from  whom?  Here  is  the  telegram.  Upon  the  telegram  is 
marked,  ''Phoned."  The  man  who  sent  that  telegram  did  not 
have  the  courage  to  go  to  the  telegraph  office  and  let  his  face 
be  seen.  "Time  filed  7  :30  p.  m.,  paid.  Charge  to  Robinson, 
Miller  &  Rosenhauf."  Who  hired  them?  One  of  the  co-con- 
spirators here,  the  man  who  had  been  down  at  Caldwell  with 
Orchard  under  an  assumed  name  and  helped  him  plant  his 
first  bomb.  The  telegram  says :  "T.  Hogan,  care  of  Sheriff, 
Caldwell,  Idaho.  Attorney  Fred  Miller  will  start  for  Cald- 
well in  the  morning.  (Signed)  M."  Rather  quick  in  their 
action !  Rather  hurried  to  get  to  the  defense  of  this  man ! 
Why  are  they  sending  an  attorney  from  Spokane?  How  do 
they  know  his  name  down  in  Caldwell  is  T.  Hogan?  Why 
should  they  go  to  his  rescue?  Does  the  attorney  go?  He 
starts  from  Spokane  but  he  does  not  go  all  the  way  through. 
Now  the  defense  says  that  it  is  the  policy  of  the  Western 
Federation  of  Miners  to  go  to  the  defense  of  its  men,  any  man 
who  has  ever  been  upon  their  list.  Then  there  was  no  reason 
why  Fred  Miller  should  not  have  proceeded  at  once  openly 
and  above  board  to  Caldwell.  If  he  knew  and  if  Jack  Simp- 
kins,  who  employed  him,  knew  that  this  man  was  a  Western 
Federation  man,  but  did  not  know  that  he  was  guilty,  and 
was  acting  under  this  general  rule,  then  why  should  he  not 
go  and  why  should  he  not  go  openly?  Why  should  he  not 
have  signed  this  telegram  in  full  ?  But  Miller  starts  to  Cald- 
well, buys  a  ticket  to  Caldwell,  goes  down  as  far  as  Walla 


76 

• 

Walla  and  for  some  reason  or  other  turns  around  and  flees 
from  his  client.  They  are  trying  to  reach  him  with  a  con- 
cealed hand.  They  are  trying  to  give  him  encouragement  un- 
beknown to  the  world,  and  when  the  news  began  to  spread 
they  saw  they  were  uncovered,  Miller  takes  his  back  track 
and  leaves  his  client  in  the  city  of  Caldwell.  If  he  was  going 
to  defend  a  Western  Federation  man,  believing  him  innocent, 
was  there  any  reason  why  he  should  be  ashamed  of  it?  No. 
But  the  truth  is  Jack  Simpkins  had  been  to  Miller's  office,  he 
had  also  been  to  Caldwell,  he  had  been  there  under  an  as- 
sumed name,  he  had  left  Orchard  to  do  this  awful  deed,  and 
the  minute  that  Frank  Steunenberg  passed  into  eternity  he 
knew  that  his  co-conspirator  had  murdered  him.  He  was  act- 
ing with  the  consciousness  of  guilt,  riot  under  the  rule  of 
the  Federation  but  in  an  attempt  to  help  a  fellow  murderer. 

What  do  they  do  next?  After  starting  upon  his  fruitless 
mission  the  brave  Miller,  who  starts  to  his  client  and  turns 
and  flees,  goes  back  home.  Now  remember  this  telegram  to 
Orchard  was  sent  at  7  :30  upon  the  evening  of  the  3d.  Miller 
would  start  down  upon  the  morning  of  the  4th.  He  would 
get  back  to  Spokane  upon  his  return  trip  the  evening  of  the 
4th.  As  soon  as  he  gets  back  to  Spokane  he  sees  that  he 
can  not  get  to  his  client  under  cover.  Then  Simpkins  gets 
in  touch  with  another  member  of  this  conspiracy.  He  sent  a 
secret  telegram,  so  secret,  so  undecipherable,  so  hidden  in  the 
mysteries  of  their  way  of  doing  business  that  it  took  the  at- 
torney for  the  Federation  and  Mr.  Haywood  and  Mr.  Moyer 
three  days  to  interpret  it.  They  worked  upon  it,  and  they  are 
not  even  yet  entirely  satisfied.  Why  this  secrecy  from  Jack 
Simpkins,  and  why  does  he  send  a  telegram  to  Haywood  at 
all  ?  What  does  the  telegram  say  ?  "Can't  get  a  lawyer  to  de- 
fend Hogan.  Answer."  Why  can  he  not  get  a  lawyer  to 


77 

defend  Hogan?  What  is  the  matter  with  Miller?  Why  had 
he  started  and  turned  back?  No  consciousness  of  guilt!  No 
evidence  of  crime!  So  he  says  in  effect  to  Haywood,  "Send 
a  man  to  defend  Hogan."  Who  is  Hogan?  How  does  Hay- 
wood  know  that  he  ought  to  be  defended?  Why,  Hogan  is 
a  man  who  was  at  Caldwell  a  few  weeks  ago  with  the  chief 
representative  of  the  Western  Federation  for  Idaho,  a  man  to 
whom  Pettibone  had  written  a  few  days  before,  a  man  who  is 
on  the  benefit  roll,  a  .man  who  had  left  Denver  a  few  weeks 
before  armed  for  crime.  Get  busy ! 

Now,  gentlemen,  I  want  you  to  think  of  that  telegram  when 
you  go  into  your  jury  room.  It  is  a  very  peculiarly  worded 
telegram,  if  Mr.  Haywood  did  not  know,  before  it  was  sent, 
anything  about  this  transaction.  The  telegram  does  not  say, 
"Harry  Orchard  is  here  as  Tom  Hogan;"  it  does  not  say,  "He 
is  charged  with  the  killing  of  Governor  Steunenberg  and  is  in- 
nocent;" it  does  not  say,  "Do  you  want  me,  as  a  member  of 
the  board,  to  act  in  this  matter?"  It  does  not  say,  "Do  you 
want  a  lawyer  or  shall  I  act?"  No,  he  simply  says,  "Can't  get 
a  lawyer  to  defend  Hogan,"  and  the  man  who  sent  that  tele- 
gram knew  that  the  man  who  was  to  receive  it  understood 
precisely  the  entire  situation.  There  is  not  any  more  doubt 
about  it  than  that  the  telegram  was  sent.  It  reveals  the 
knowledge,  the  complicity,  the  association  of  all  parties. 

Immediately  they  began  to  get  ready  for  a  general  defense. 
Mr.  Nugent  is  telegraphed  to  through  Mr.  Hanlon,  the  secre- 
tary of  the  union  at  Silver  City.  What  does  Nugent  say  ?  He 
says  a  very  wise  and  proper  thing,  something  that  would  nat- 
urally suggest  itself  to  you.  When  they  telegraphed  him  to 
get  ready  to  defend  the  Western  Federation  of  Miners  be- 
cause Harry  Orchard  has  assassinated  Governor  Steunenberg, 
Nugent  says  in  reply,  "I  don't  see  how  the  Western  Federa- 


78 

tion  of  Miners  is  involved."  Neither  could  you  at  that  time ; 
neither  could  anyone  else ;  only  those  who  had  known  what 
had  happened  before  he  was  murdered  could  understand  how 
the  Western  Federation  was  involved.  Nugent  wants  an  ex- 
planation. He  was  very  wise  and  level  headed.  There  was 
no  more  reason  in  the  mind  of  Nugent,  keen  and  level  headed 
as  he  is,  why  the  Western  Federation  wished  to  get  into  that 
defense  than  there  was  why  they  should  take  up  any  other  as- 
sassin's defense.  Here  is  one  of  their  straggling  representa- 
tives up  here  in  the  State  of  Idaho,  one  whom  they  say  had 
been  for  years  a  tin  horn  gambler,  charged  with  the  assassi- 
nation of  a  Governor,  arrested,  no  charge  laid  against  this  de- 
fendant, no  charge  at  that  time  against  Pettibone,  no  charge 
against  Mover;  yet  they  rush  to  his  rescue;  yet  Jack  Simpkins 
must  send  a  telegram  which  shows  upon  its  face  knowledge 
upon  the  part  of  the  party  receiving  it. 

By  whom  was  this  telegram  sent?  By  a  man  who  is  now 
a  fugitive  from  justice.  A  few  days  after  this  murder  we 
must  notice  another  incident.  Sullivan,  the  attorney  from 
Denver,  calls  on  Orchard  at  Caldwell.  We  now  have  Mr.  Nu- 
gent from  Silver  City,  whose  attention  is  directed  to  this  mat- 
ter. We  have  Fred  Miller  coming  down  from  Spokane  on  a 
second  trip,  when  he  finally  reaches  Caldwell.  We  have  Sul- 
livan, another  attorney,  coming  from  Denver.  All  within  a 
very  few  days  after  the  murder.  There  must  be  something 
very  important  about  this  matter  to  somebdy  besides  Orch- 
.  ard.  After  they  all  come  in  contact  with  Orchard  they  know 
who  he  is ;  they  know  that  it  is  Tom  Hogan,  the  suspect  from 
Colorado,  a  man  whom  they  now  repudiate  as  having  been 
a  bilk  all  his  days,  but  they  proceed  immediately  to  his  de- 
fense. Mr.  Moyer  says,  in  one  of  his  paper  interviews  about 
this  time,  <4We  will  investigate  and  if  we  find  that  this  man 


79 

is  guilty,  we  are  not  in  favor  <>!  protecting  criminals."  They 
had  from  the  Wth  day  of  December  until  the  30th  day  of  Jan- 
uary to  make  their  investigations.  What  do  they  make?  Do 
they  go  to  Jack  Simpkins?  Making  an  investigation!  Why, 
the  knowledge  was  in  their  possession.  Jack  Simpkins,  the 
member  of  the  Executive  Board  from  Idaho,  their  representa- 
tive of  this  organization,  had  all  the  information  in  the  world 
that  they  needed.  From  whom  were  they  going  to  make  in- 
quiry? Why,  Fred  Miller  went  down  to  Denver  direct  from 
Jack  Simpkins,  and  Jack  Simpkins  is  in  possession  of  all  the 
facts  necessary  to  hang  Harry  Orchard.  What  investigation 
do  they  make  ?  They  did  not  make  any,  and  they  did  not  need 
to  make  any.  The  Western  Federation  of  Miners,  through  its 
officials,  knew  everything.  One  of  these  conspirators  was 
actually  on  the  ground  and  what  one  of  them  knew  all  knew ; 
what  one  of  them  did  all  did ;  and  yet  they  tell  you  they  were 
going  to  proceed  to  investigate.  Well  they  did  proceed.  Mr. 
Miller  went  to  Denver  thirty  days  afterward  direct  from  Ho- 
gan,  the  suspect  from  Colorado,  and  they  gave  him  a  check 
for  $1500.  For  what  purpose  ?  To  defend  this  man  whom 
they  knew  at  that  time  and  whom  Simpkins  well  knew,  and 
whom  Pettibone  knew  had  committed  this  awful  murder. 
Now  are  those  facts  dependent  upon  the  testimony  of  Orch- 
ard ?  Let  us  go  back  a  moment  and  see  how  much  of  this  is 
proven  outside  of  Orchard's  testimony. 

First,  his  trip  to  Caldwell ;  where  he  stopped;  his  trip  to 
Wallace,  and  that  Simpkins  went  back  there  with  him,  and 
that  he  stopped  with  him  under  an  assumed  name.  These  are 
facts  proven  by  the  hotel  register,  by  old  man  Dempsey,  by 
Russell,  by  Bowman,  and  are  undisputed  propositions  here. 
Simpkins  went  to  Denver  and  back;  the  letter  comes  to  Orch- 
ard in  jail;  the  draft  is  sent  to  Simpkins;  all  outside  of  Orch- 


80 

ard's  testimony;  that  the  letter  is  in  Pettibone's  handwriting 
is  proven  by  Orchard's  testimony  and  Pettibone's  silence,  and 
silence  is  a  confession ;  that  this  telegram  was  signed  by 
Simpkins ;  that  Fred  Miller  was  sent  down,  turned  around 
and  went  back,  and  that  the  other  telegram  was  sent  at  Simp- 
kins'  suggestion;  that  they  acted  upon  it;  that  they  employed 
counsel — all  proven  outside  of  Orchard's  testimony.  Are 
these  facts  which  tend,  of  themselves,  to  connect  the  defend- 
ant with  this  crime?  Are  we  here  before  you  with  the  tes- 
timony of  Orchard  alone  ?  They  say  that  the  Pinkertons  have 
built  up  this  case.  The  Pinkertons  built  nothing;  they  have 
simply  uncovered.  No  Pinkerton  has  been  upon  the  stand ; 
they  have  simply  unraveled  the  testimony  where  it  lay  hid- 
den beneath  the  wily  schemes  of  those  who  were  engaged 
in  the  crime.  Did  the  Pinkertons  send  Orchard  to  Caldwell? 
Did  they  send  his  shot  gun  and  his  bomb  with  him?  Did  they 
send  Jack  Simpkins  to  Caldwell?  Did  they  cause  him  to 
register  under  an  assumed  name?  Did  they  send  him  back 
to  Wallace  and  from  there  to  Denver?  Did  they  cause  him  to 
send  this  telegram  to  Haywood  ?  Did  they  cause  Haywood  to 
hire  attorneys  for  Orchard?  Did  the  Pinkertons  send  help 
and  aid  to  Orchard?  This  is  the  case  of  the  killing  of  Frank 
Steunenberg  which  stands  alone,  clean,  absolutely  clean,  of 
any  evidence  which  can  be  charged  to  any  parties  who  may 
be  interested  in  this  case. 

Mr.  Darrow  may  say  of  me,  as  he  did  of  Hawley,  that  I  am 
crazy;  but  I  have  lucid  inte'rvals,  and  I  say  to  you  that  if 
you  will  start  with  Harry  Orchard  from  the  time  he  left  Den- 
ver until  Fred  Miller  was  hired  on  the  30th  day  of  January, 
1906,  to  defend  this  murderer,  and  trace  his  testimony  and 
watch  the  actions  and  read  the  letters  and  the  telegrams, 
watch  the  movements,  the  concerted  actions,  of  all  these  five 


81 

men,  you  will  find  that  there  is  a  complete  and  absolute  con- 
spiracy proved  beyond  a  reasonable  doubt  and  that  conspiracy 
had  for  its  object,  among  other  things,  the  murder  of  Frank 
Steunenberg,  and  you  will  find  all  of  this  outside  of  any  evi- 
dence or  any  crime  that  was  connected  with  the  affairs  in 
Colorado.  Standing  alone,  measured  by  the  rules  of  evidence 
and  the  law  which  will  be  given  you  by  the  Court,  you  will 
find  here  a  clean,  complete  and  thoroughly  established  con- 
spiracy, and  you  need  not  go  elsewhere. 

What  have  we  by  this  time?  No  crime!  Where  is  Jack 
Simpkins  that  "Dear  Tom"  was  talking  about?  A  fugitive,  in 
hiding.  Where  is  another  member  of  this  conspiracy — Orch- 
ard— a  self-confessed  murderer?  Up  here  in  the  penitentiary. 
Where  is  George  Pettibone,  the  man  who  wrote  the  letter? 
Driven  into  a  corner  where  he  does  not  dare  to  come  to  the 
rescue  of  his  life-long  friend.  Three  members  of  this  con- 
spiracy, confessing  their  guilt,  either  by  their  words  of  by 
their  silence,  one  of  them  a  fugitive — confessing  that  they  are 
the  murderers  of  Frank  Steunenberg.  Uncorroborated ! 
There  is  only  one  other  feature  that  could  add  any  strength 
to  this  whole  matter  and  that  is  the  open  confession  of  the 
other  two.  That  is  all. 

Something  has  been  said  in  their  argument  about  newspa- 
pers and  about  how  the  Western  Federation  came  to  go  to 
the  defense  of  Orchard,  certain  newspapers  having  been  in- 
troduced, and  you  may  be  called  upon  again  to  look  over  them. 
I  shall  not  take  the  time  to  read  them,  but  I  have  read  them, 
and  I  want  to  call  your  attention  to  three  or  four  things 
which  they  say,  and  when  you  read  them  I  want  you  to  read 
them  in  the  light  of  these  suggestions. 

First,  these  newspaper  articles,  which  caused  them  to  act, 
as  they  say,  show  that  Orchard  was  wanted  in  Colorado  for 


82 

the  blowing  up  of  the  Independence  depot,  a  crime  for  which 
the  Western  Federation  had  issued  a  reward  of  $5000.  They 
certainly  could  not  object  to  having  a  thorough  investigation 
of  that.  If  they  did  object  it  might  be  suggested  that  the  $5,- 
000  reward  was  issued  for  a  blind.  These  newspapers  say 
that  Mr.  Crump  and  Mr.  Bell  and  those  who  were  coming  to 
Idaho,  were  coming  with  extradition  papers  to  get  Orchard 
and  take  him  back  to  Colorado.  For  what  purpose?  Were 
they  after  Hay  wood  or  Moyer  or  Pettibone  ?  No.  They 
wanted  to  get  this  individual  whom  they  themselves  say  had 
been  suspected  for  two  years.  No  charge  made  that  the  West- 
ern Federation  was  in  this  killing  at  Caldwell.  The  only 
thing  they  said  in  the  paper  was  the  fact  that  there  was  a 
postal  card  in  his  pocket  addressed  to  Charles  Moyer,  unsent; 
no  suggestion  that  Moyer  was  a  co-conspirator  or  that  the 
Western  Federation  was  back  of  Orchard.  This  suggestion 
comes  after  the  telegram  is  sent  by  Miller  to  Orchard  at  Cald- 
well. Now  there  is  not  a  single  intimation  in  these  papers 
that  the  Western  Federation,  or  its  officials  had  anything  to 
do  with  the  murder  of  Governor  Steunenberg  at  the  time  of 
the  sending  of  the  first  two  telegrams. 

Take  these  papers  and  ascertain  for  yourself.  You  will  find 
that  at  the  time  these  telegrams  were  sent,  this  secret  tele- 
gram, that  there  was  not  a  suggestion  of  any  nature  incrimi- 
nating the  Western  Federation.  The  first  open  declaration 
which  showed  that  the  Western  Federation  was,  involved  came 
from  the  first  telegram  sent  by  this  defendant.  Shrewd ! 
Keen !  Brains !  Of  course  he  has  brains.  He  entered  upon 
this  defense  in  the  second  telegram  he  ever  sent,  and  that  is 
the  first  time  the  Western  Federation  of  Miners  was  thrown 
to  the  front  in  this  fight.  You  will  find,  further,  that  these 
papers  promised,  upon  the  part  of  Moyer  and  Haywood,  that 


83 

tlurc  would  be  a  close  investigation  as  to  whether  or  not  this 
man  was  guilty  and,  if  he  was,  they  would  not  aid  him,  and 
you  know  that  they  made  no  such  investigation.  These  are 
the  things  which  are  disclosed  by  the  newspaper  articles  and 
they  show  no  reason  why  the  Western  'Federation  should  de- 
fend Orchard  in  order  to  defend  itself.  But,  anyway,  the 
newspapers  came  after  the  telegram  from  Miller  to  Hogan 
and  from  Simpkins  to  Haywood. 

So  much  for  the  testimony  in  reference  to  the  killing  of 
ex-Governor  Steunenberg.  This  is  the  crime  for  which  the 
defendant  must  be  convicted  if  at  all.  This  is  the  crime  with 
which  he  stands  charged  in  this  indictment.  If  we  have  not 
proven  this  crime  beyond  a  reasonable  doubt,  then  it  is  im- 
material what  may  have  been  done  in  Colorado.  If  we  have 
not  satisfied  you  of  a  conspiracy  for  the  killing  of  Frank 
Steunenberg,  and  satisfied  you  that  this  defendant  was  a  mem- 
ber of  that  conspiracy,  it  would  do  us  no  good  to  show  that 
there  was  a  conspiracy  and  an  attempt  to  murder  in  Colorado ; 
it  would  do  us  no  good  to  show  that  these  defendants  con- 
spired to  blow  up  the  Independence  depot ;  it  would  do  us  no 
good  to  show  that  they  killed  Lyte  Gregory.  This  is  the  of- 
fense for  which  the  defendant  must  be  convicted,  if  at  all,  and 
the  evidence  must  be  satisfactory  to  you  beyond  .a  reasonable 
doubt.  Hence,  I  have  taken  considerable  time  in  discussing 
this  particular  offense.  I  want  you  to  group  all  the  evidence 
of  the  State  around  it.  I  want  you  to  understand  that  every 
particle  of  evidence  in  this  case  has  been  introduced  for  the 
purpose  of  proving  this  one  crime.  You  may  be  doubtful  as 
to  other  crimes  without  being  doubtful  as  to  this  one;  you 
may  be  doubtful  as  to  whether  the  Vindicator  mine  incident 
was  an  accident  or  a  designed  explosion;  you  may  be  doubt- 
ful of  some  other  transactions ;  but,  if  you  are  not  doubtful  of 
this  crime,  then  it  is  your  duty  to  convict. 


84 

The  question  then  arises,  why  do  we  go  to  California ;  why 
do  we  go  .into  these  other  offenses  at  all?  Not  that  we  can 
convict  the  defendant  of  those  offenses,  but  for  the  reason 
that  we  desire  to  show  to  the  jury  tfie  nature  of  this  organi- 
zation, the  fact  of  its  connection  with  Orchard,  the  relationship 
of  Orchard  with  the  defendant,  the  fact  that  they  were  asso- 
ciated together  in  crime,  to  show  motive,  to  show  the  incen- 
tive. Therefore,  when  you  come  to  consider  the  Bradley  mat- 
ter, you  examine  it  for  the  purpose  of  determining  some  of 
these  matters,  for  the  purpose  of  finding  evidence  which  ac- 
centuates and  strengthens  the  claim  of  the  State  in  the  proof 
of  this  particular  offense. 

The  Attempt  on  Bradley. 

Let  us  see  if  they  had  a  motive  in  attempting  to  kill  Mr. 
Bradley  by  reason  of  his  association  with  the  Bunker  Hill  and 
Sullivan  mine  or  by  reason  of  the  fact  that  he  was  considered 
an  enemy  of  the  Western  Federation.  If  they  murdered  Greg- 
ory because  he  was  considered  an  enemy  of  the  Western  Fed- 
eration ;  if  they  blew  up  the  Independence  depot  because  the 
men  upon  it  at  the  time  were  scabs  and  because  they  consid- 
ered them  unfriendly  or  a  hindrance  to  the  advancement  of 
their  cause;'  if  they  attempted  to  murder  Goddard  because 
he  had  rendered  decisions  which  they  considered  unfriendly, 
because  he  was  the  agent  and  representative  of  the  capitalis- 
tic class  which  they  believed  to  be  arrayed  against  them;  if 
they  attempted  to  murder  Gabbert,  and  got  Walley,  for  the 
same  reason ;  if  they  attempted  to  murder  Bell  and  Peabody 
because  they  regarded  them  in  the  same  class  as  Steunen- 
berg,  then  we  are  approaching  step  by  step  to  the  conclusion 
that  there  was  a  conspiracy  so  embracing  in  its  purpose  the 
commission  of  these  crimes,  all  governed  by  a  single  motive,  by 


85 

a  single  design,  for  a  single  purpose,  and  all  tending  to  prove 
the  general  understanding  to  do  away  with  their  enemies. 
For  instance,  if  you  should  be  satisfied  that  they  were  asso- 
ciated together  in  crime  in  Colorado  and  for  the  same  motive 
and  for  the  same  reason  they  were  together  in  Idaho,  it  would 
greatly  strengthen  your  belief  as  to  this  crime.  It  might  be 
pretty  difficult  at  first  thought  to  conceive  the  proposition 
that  a  great  labor  organization  had  at  once  and  suddenly  de- 
termined upon  the  plan  of  sending  a  man  into  Idaho  to  kill 
an  ex-Governor.  At  first  blush  it  seems  improbable  and  un- 
reasonable. Therefore,  we  go  back  into  the  history  of  the  or- 
ganization ;  we  trace  it  back  to  its  first  cause ;  we  go  back  to 
the  motives  which  actuated  them  in  their  first  movement;  we 
find  out  who  are  their  friends,  who  are  their  enemies,  who 
are  their  associates,  what  their  objects  and  purposes  are,  what 
they  have  been  doing,  what  kind  of  an  organization  it  is,  and 
all  for  the  purpose  of  throwing  light  upon  this  particular 
crime  charged. 

Before  going  into  the  details  of  the  evidence  with  reference 
to  the  Bradley  matter,  I  call  your  attention  to  the  similarity 
between  the  two  offenses,  that  of  the  killing  of  Governor 
Steunenberg  and  the  attempt  to  kill  Bradley ;  and  as  you  go 
along  watch  the  development  of  the  evidence  in  the  case  and 
you  will  find  a  wonderful  likeness,  a  wonderful  similarity  in 
the  plan  and  scheme  and  details  between  the  two  offenses. 
For  instance,  we  have  already,  we  believe,  satisfied  you  that 
Mr.  Orchard  started  from  the  city  of  Denver  to  Caldwell.  He 
testifies  to  that  fact  and  all  the  evidence  in  the  case  points  to 
the  truth  of  his  statement.  So,  again,  when  he  started  upon 
his  mission  to  kill  Bradley  he  starts  from  Denver  and  goes 
direct  to  the  city  of  San  Francisco.  They  would  have  you  be- 
lieve that  he  went  all  the  way  to  San  Francisco  to  play  cards 


86 

with  the  soldiers  at  the  Presidio;  that  this  man,  at  his  own 
expense,  on  his  own  initiative,  by  reason  of  some  motive  of 
his  own,  suddenly  got  up,  took  the  train  at  Djenver,  went  down 
to  the  city  of  San  Francisco — a  roving,  irresponsible  tin  horn 
gambler.  Remember,  too,  that  the  same  man  who  prepared 
him  and  assisted  him  in  getting  ready  for  the  trip  to  Caldwell 
was  the  same  man  who  assisted  him  in  getting  ready  for  the 
trip  to  San  Francisco. 

Immediately  after  Orchard  arrives  in  San  Francisco  he  goes 
at  once  to  the  neighborhood  where  Bradley  lived  and  begins 
to  shadow  his  house.  Notice  how  directly  he  moves  from 
Denver  to  the  very  home  of  the  man  who  is  the  recognized 
enemy  and  opponent  of  the  Western  Federation  of  Miners, 
the  man  whose  mill  was  blown  up  in  1899  and  who  would 
likely  have  been  killed  had  he  been  there  at  the  time.  This 
roving  and  irresponsible  tin  horn  gambler  had  a  scent  for 
the  enemies  of  the  Western  Federation  of  Miners  that  was 
deadly  and  certain  and  a  thousand  times  stronger  than  the 
scent  of  any  blood  hound.  He  moves  direct  to  the  scene.  He 
shadows  upon  his  house.  Now  is  there  any  evidence  of  this 
outside  of  Orchard's  testimony?  Let  us  see.  When  he  ar- 
rived in  San  Francisco,  and  in  a  short  time  thereafter,  he 
turns  up  at  Giubinny's  store,  an  out-of-the-way  place,  a  little 
store  in  the  outer  portion  of  the  city.  Has  he  any  business 
at  Giubinny's?  Is  there  any  reason  for  his  being  there?  Is 
it  a  gambling  dive?  Is  there  anybody  there  whom  he  knew? 
What  motive  had  he  for  going  there?  What  prompts  him? 
Why,  just  across  the  street  lives  Mr.  Bradley,  the  man  whom 
they  had  evidently  attempted  to  get  upon  the  29th  day  of 
April,  1899,  the  man  who  stood  in  the  same  class  with  Gov- 
ernor Steunenberg,  whose  property  was  destroyed  and  whose 
employees  were  murdered,  by  reason  of  all  of  which  Frank 


87 

Steunenberg  was  called  into  the  Coeur  d'Alenes  with  the 
troops.  And  so  he  goes  direct  to  Giubbiny's  and  made  him- 
self familiar  with  Giubbiny,  stays  about  the  store,  gets  ac- 
quainted. Why?  Incidentally  they  would  say;  accidently 
they  would  argue.  He  simply  saw  those  girls  over  at  Bradleys 
and  wanted  to  get  acquainted  with  them.  It  so  happened, 
however,  that  they  were  the  employees  of  Fred  Bradley,  the 
Bunker  Hill  and  Sullivan  mine  manager,  whom  he  wanted  to 
meet,  and  it  seems  that  he  did  not  care  to  meet  anybody  else's 
employees.  After  he  got  acquainted  with  the  girls,  which  ac- 
quaintance he  asked  for,  then  he  said  to  Giubbiny,  "I  want  to 
carry  some  groceries  over  there."  He  went  over  and  took 
groceries  to  the  house  and  got  in  touch  with  the  door,  became 
familiar  with  the  openings  and  surveyed  the  situation.  He 
now  knows  where  Bradley  lives.  He  takes  no  chance ;  he 
carefully  and  coolly  and  fiendishly  surveys  the  situation;  he 
gets  closer  and  closer  in  touch  with  Bradley  but  finally  dis- 
covers that  he  is  away  from  home.  He  then  waited  about 
until  Fred  Bradley  returns.  In  the  meantime  what  does  he 
do?  Now,  this  is  not  Orchard's  testimony.  Mr.  Giubbiny 
says  he  asked  him  to  get  him  a  room.  Where?  Where  does 
he  want  the  room?  Anywhere  where  it  is  cheap?  No.  "I 
want  a  room  which  overlooks  Fred  Bradley 's  place  of  resi- 
dence." This  is  the  testimony  of  Giubbiny.  So  Orchard  goes 
from  Denver  direct  to  a  hiding  place  in  order  to  get  at  Brad- 
ley's  residence,  secures  a  room  which  overlooks  his  home,  and 
yet  they  tell  you  there  was  no  design,  no  motive,  that  he  was 
not  shadowing,  sleuthing  or  intending  to  kill.  After  he  got 
the  room  overlooking  Fred  Bradley  what  does  he  proceed  to 
do?  He  stays  around  very  close;  watches  Bradley 's 'move- 
ments. He  did  not  kill  him  in  a  day.  True  he  did  not  kill 
him  when  he  was  in  the  mountains,  but  it  is  true  that  this 


stranger  went  where  he  would  expect  to  find  Bradley ;  it  is 
true  that  he  went  with  the  evident  design  to  find  him ;  it  is 
true  that  every  act  of  his  discloses  that  he  was  intending  to 
find  him,  and  for  an  evil  purpose.  Now  was  this  his  motive  ? 
Was  this  his  own  design?  What  reason  did  he  have  for  being 
there  ?  Bradley  was  a  stranger  to  him.  After  he  got  acquaint- 
ed, got  his  room,  gets  located,  knows  all  about  what  is  going 
on,  he  proceeds,  in  the  first  place,  to  poison  the  milk.  What 
is  the  evidence  in  regard  to  this  ? 

Orchard  says  that  he  poisoned  the  milk.  Mr.  Bradley  says 
that  he  tasted  the  milk  and  found  it  bitter;  the  girl  who 
was  working  in  the  house  did  the  same.  A  part  of  the  milk 
was  taken  out  and  given  back  to  the  dairyman,  the  dairyman 
gave  it  to  the  chemist  and  the  chemist  found  that  it  had 
enough  strychnine  in  it  to  kill  half  a  dozen  men  or  more.  All 
these  witnesses  have  been  here  and  testified  to  these  facts. 
Was  it  an  accident  or  an  incident  that  the  only  man  who  found 
the  milk  bitter,  the  only  complaint  in  that  entire  vicinity,  was 
that  of  Bradley 's?  Was  it  an  accident  that  the  man  whose 
milk  had  poison  in  it  was  once  the  manager  of  the  Bunker 
Hill  and  Sullivan  mine?  Was  there  no  design,  no  purpose? 
But  what  do  they  say  in  answer  to  this.  They  simply  say 
he  could  not  have  gotten  upon  the  flat  roof.  Mr.  Darrow  says 
that  there  is  a  piece  of  testimony  that  was  undoubtedly  manu- 
factured by  the  great  manufacturing  establishment  of  the 
Pinkertons;  that  we  found  out  by  pictures  that  there  was  a 
flat  roof  there  and  then  it  turned  out  afterwards  that  the  flat 
roof  was  not  there  until  six  months  after  the  milk  was  pois- 
oned, and  so  he  thinks  the  State  is  caught.  Now,  is  his  state- 
ment true?  The  inference  which  he  would  have  you  draw  is 
that  we  had  found  out  that  there  was  once  a  flat  roof  there 
and,  supposing  it  to  have  been  there  at  the  time  of  the  poison- 


89 

ing,  that  we  just  put  Orchard  on  top  of  that  roof  and  manu- 
factured this  piece  of  testimony.  It  was  not  necessary  to  have 
any  flat  roof  at  all.  Mr.  Orchard  could  have  gone  up  the 
stairs.  But  it  would  seem  that  if  this  flat  roof  was  a  matter 
of  manufacture  that  the  State  would  have  introduced  it  itself. 
But  the  question  of  the  flat  roof  was  not  a  thing  which  the 
State  put  into  the  evidence  at  all. 

Among  a  few  other  questions  which  Richardson  asked 
Orchard  was  this  one :  "And  you  laid  on  a  flat  roof  some- 
where?" "I  laid  on  a  flat  roof  there  three  or  four  or  five  feet 
above  the  roof  on  the  back  part."  Mr.  Richardson  draws 
from  the  witness,  on  cross-examination,  the  manner  in  which 
he  poisoned  the  milk,  and  draws  out  the  fact  that  there  was  a 
flat  roof  there  somewhere.  This  does  not  show  very  much 
design  or  preconceived  action  to  manufacture  on  the  part  'of 
the  State.  It  is  drawn  out  upon  cross-examination,  and  I  sub- 
mit that  Orchard  does  not  say  anywhere  in  his  testimony 
that  he  got  upon  the  flat  roof  of  the  Linforth  flat. 

By  Mr.  Darrow :  There  is  a  question  just  before  that,  Sen- 
ator, if  you  will  permit  me  to  call  your  attention  to  it.  Shall 
I  look  it  up? 

Mr.  Borah  :    I  have  it. 

Mr.  Darrow  :    All  right. 

Mr.  Borah :  Mr.  Orchard  did  not  say,  as  I  read  his  testi- 
mony, that  he  got  on  the  Linforth  flat,  that  is  upon  the  roof 
of  a  four-story  flat.  What  he  says,  under  any  fair  interpre- 
tation of  the  evidence,  is  that  he  got  upon  a  roof  there  some- 
where, a  flat  roof  which  was  in  close  connection  with  the  Lin- 
forth flat.  "There  was  a  flat  roof  on  the  back  story  and  I  got 
over  on  there  before  daylight,"  in  connection  with  the  testi- 
mony in  which  he  says,  he  got  on  a  flat  roof  there  somewhere. 
This  is  his  evidence.  Now  Mr.  Orchard  would  not  know  and 


90 

could  not  know  whether  this  particular  roof  was  a  part  of 
the  Linforth  building  or  not ;  he  does  not  undertake  to  say  that 
he  was  on  the  top  of  the  Linforth  flat.  But  it  is  apparent  that 
he  went  up  that  pair  of  stairs,  and  just  as  Mr.  Giubbiny  says 
he  could  do,  he  passed  over  onto  this  flat  roof  of  the  Wise 
house,  which  was  there  at  the  time  the  milk  was  poisoned.  Is 
not  that  correct? 

Mr.  Darrow :    No.    I  thought  you  would  say  that. 

Mr.  Borah:  A  Daniel  come  to  judgment!  You  know  what 
a  man  is  going  to  say  two  days  ahead. 

Now  there  is  a  statement  of  Mr.  Orchard  in  connection 
with  it.  Of  course  he  could  not  get  on  top  of  the  roof  of  the 
Linforth  flats  and  it  would  be  of  no  service  to  him  in  poison- 
ing the  milk  to  be  there.  He  would  not  be  any  closer  to  the 
pface  where  he  could  put  the  poison  in  the  milk  than  if  he 
was  down  on  the  ground.  It  therefore  stands  to  reason  that 
he  meant  just  what  he  said,  in  answer  to  Mr.  Richardson,  who 
first  brought  out  this  matter,  that  he  got  on  a  flat  roof  there 
somewhere.  Mr.  Giubbiny  says  there  was  a  flat  roof  there 
extending  within  two  or  three  feet  of  the  stairs  and  that  a 
party  could  pass  over  from  the  stairs  onto  the  flat  roof  with- 
out any  difficulty. 

We  do  not  contend  and  never  did  contend  that  he  could 
or  did  get  on  the  top  of  the  Linforth  flats.  But  when  you 
take  into  consideration  the  fact  that  he  went  direct  to  the 
house  of  Bradley,  that  he  put  himself  in  touch  with  the  inner 
part  of  the  house  as  nearly  as  he  could,  that  he  got  acquainted 
with  the  servants,  that  he  went  into  the  house,  that  he  stayed 
there  and  shadowed  it  and  remained  with  it  until  the  milk 
was  poisoned,  and  there  is  no  question  about  all  this,  it  will 
not  take  you  very  long  to  determine  whether,  in  accomplishing 
this,  he  stepped  from  the  stairs  over  onto  the  Wise  building 
where  there  was  a  flat  roof. 


91 

There  is  too  much  of  design.  When  you  see  a  piece  of  ma- 
chinery at  work  you  know  that  there  was  a  designer  behind 
it ;  you  may  not  know  how  he  did  it,  you  may  not  know  what 
mechanism  he  used,  but  you  know  behind  all  of  this  machin- 
ery was  a  design  and  a  designer.  The  evidence  which  shows 
the  poisoning  of  the  milk  is  so  conclusive,  so  thoroughly  es- 
tablished and  corroborated,  so  incidental  to  the  presence  of 
Bradley  there  and  of  his  presence  at  the  Bunker  Hill  and  Sul- 
livan mine,  that  you  know  that  there  was  a  design  and  a  de- 
signer behind  it  all ;  that  it  was  not  an  accident.  But  the  milk 
poising  scheme  miscarried  and  he  went  back  to  the  old  propo- 
sition of  "via  the  bomb  route."  He  concluded  that  that  was 
better  and  more  in  accordance  with  the  creed  under  which  he 
had  been  raised. 

Now  taking  up  the  question  of  the  explosion  of  the  bomb, 
let  us  go  over  to  Mrs.  Soward's  room  where  Orchard  is  stop- 
ping, the  room  which  Giubbiny  had  secured  for  him,  and  find 
out  how  he  was  amusing  himself;  let  us  see  what  this  tin- 
horn gambler,  without  a  purpose  and  without  a  motive,  is  do- 
ing down  in  San  Francisco.  We'find  here  immediately  a  fac- 
simile scheme  to  the  one  which  was  used  in  the  killing  of 
Steunenberg.  There  is  the  screw  eye  in  the  door,  the  lead 
shavings,  the  lumber  shavings  scattered  about  the  room,  the 
experimenting,  identical  with  the  experiment  which  was  car- 
ried on  in  room  19  of  the  Saratoga  hotel  at  Caldwell.  Did  the 
Pinkertons  fix  up  this  room  for  Mrs.  Soward?  Did  the  Pin- 
kertons  put  a  lie  upon  her  lips  ?  Did  the  mine  owners  put  the 
room  in  the  condition  in  which  it  was  found?  That  Orchard 
was  there,  with  his  window  looking  out  upon  Bradley 's  resi- 
dence, manufacturing  this  bomb,  is  established  beyond  a  doubt. 
He  was  not  manufacturing  it  either  to  assist  him  as  a  gam- 
bler. What  next  happens? 


92 

The  night  before  the  bomb  is  exploded  at  Bradley 's  door 
Mr.  Orchard  moves  his  valise  and  belongings,  takes  them 
away  to  another  part  of  the  town,  preparing  his  alibi.  Why 
does  he  go  ?  He  knows  that  there  is  going  to  be  a  gas  explo- 
sion the  next  morning  at  Bradley 's  house !  Mr.  Giubbiny 
happens  to  be  upon  the  car  that  night  and  asks  him  where 
he  is  going.  He  told  him  he  was  going  to  a  certain  part  of 
the  city,  but  Giubbiny  observes  that  he  did  not  go  there.  He 
states  a  falsehood  to  Mr.  Giubbiny.  He  is  attempting  to  con- 
ceal his  whereabouts.  He  was  moving,  getting  ready,  when 
the  murder  is  accomplished,  to  make  his  get-aAvay,  making  his 
chance  of  flight  perfect.  His  scheme  was  all  worked  out  in 
his  own  brain,  and  next  morning  the  manager  of  the  Bunker 
Hill  and  Sullivan  mine,  the  man  whose  milk  had  been  pois- 
oned a  few  days  before,  is  blown  into  the  street  the  moment 
he  opens  his  front  door.  Notice  the  evidence  for  a  few  mo- 
ments with  reference  to  this  incident.  The  next  morning 
Bradley  came  out  of  his  room.  Miss  Bell  had  preceded  him 
down  the  stairs  sometime  before,  gone  to  the  outer  door,  open- 
ed the  hallway  from  top  to  .bottom,  picked  up  the  newspaper 
and  carried  it  back  up  stairs.  There  had  been  an  entire  opening 
of  the  hallway,  where  the  gas  was  supposed  to  be  accumulat- 
ing that  morning,  upon  the  part  of  Miss  Bell.  After  she  had 
gone  back  and  taken  the  paper  into  the  room  Mr.  Bradley 
left  the  room,  and,  at  the  top  of  the  stair,  lighted  his  cigar.  If 
there  had  been  a  sufficient  amount  of  gas  permeating  that 
building  to  blow  it  to  pieces,  to  wreck  it,  to  damage  it  in  the 
sum  of  $10,000,  it  is  perfectly  certain  that  something  more 
than  the  space  immediately  surrounding  the  door  would  have 
been  affected  by  the  gas.  He  lights  his  cigar  at  the  top  of  the 
stair,  and  if  there  had  been  any  gas  there  of  any  amount  it 
would  seem  there  would  have  been  some  indication  of  its 


93 

presence  at  the  time  of  the  lighting  of  his  cigar.  He  did  not 
even  smell  gas;  he  discovered  nothing  peculiar.  He  walked 
down  to  the  door  with  his  cigar  lighted,  the  match  out,  starts 
to  open  the  door.  At  the  very  moment  he  springs  the  latch, 
which  would  pull  that  wire  and  set  off  the  deadly  bomb,  as  it 
was  set  off  at  Steunenberg's  gate,  at  that  very  moment  he  is 
blown  back — knocked  -down.  Up  to  this  time  he  had  smelled 
no  gas;  never  did  smell  any  gas  until  after  he  was  knocked 
down;  of  course  it  would  be  there  at  that  time  by  reason  of 
the  explosion.  Do  you  believe  it  was  a  gas  explosion?  Look 
at  the  condition  of  the  floor  immediately  in  front  of  the  door. 
The  vestibule  and  the  tiling  floor  outside  of  the  door  were 
torn  up,  a-hole  was  torn  in  the  floor,  the  building  was  wrecked, 
the  pieces  of  the  mat  under  which  the  bomb  lay  were  in  his 
eyes — everything  points  conclusively  to  the  fact  that  it  was  a 
bomb  explosion.  Every  physical  incident,  every  physical  fact 
discloses  that  when  he  opened  that  door  that  it  was  not  the  im- 
possible thing  of  a  cigar  igniting  the  gas,  but  it  was  another 
bomb  placed  not  at  the  yard  gate  at  this  time,  but  at  the  door- 
way of  Bradley. 

What  next  happens?  This  tin-horn  gambler  who  went 
down  to  San  Francisco  without  any  purpose  or  design,  so  they 
say,  does  not  stay  there  to  gamble  very  long  after  this  ex- 
plosion. His  mission  is  ended.  He  had  been  nowhere  except 
around  Bradley's  residence.  He  has  done  all  he  can  do.  He 
has  not  killed  him  but  it  is  a  miracle  that  he  was  not  killed. 
So  Orchard  leaves.  But  before  leaving  he  went  over  to  see 
Copley,  another  Western  Federation  man  who  happened  to 
be  in  San  Francisco,  and,  of  course,  Orchard  must  come  in 
contact  with  him.  What  does  he  tell  Copley?  Copley  says 
that  Orchard  told  him  that  Mr.  Bradley  had  gotten  what  he 
deserved.  Do  you  understand,  as  jurymen,  that  he  meant 


94 

by  that  that  this  was  an  accident  ?  Does  that  suggest  to  your 
mind  that  there  was  lurking  in  the  thoughts  of  Orchard  that 
he  got  what  he  deserved  through  the  design  and  purpose  of 
some  one  who  intended  that  he  should  get  it?  What  does 
Copley  say?  He  admitted  to  me,  upon  cross-examination, 
that  he  understood  from  Orchard  that  possibly  he  had  some- 
thing to  do  with  the  Bradley  affair.  I  could  not  get  him  to 
admit  fully  his  understanding  because  he  was  not  sure  just 
what  I  wanted  and  he  knew  he  did  not  want  me  to  have  what 
I  wanted,  whatever  it  was.  But  when  Mr.  Darrow  took  hold 
of  him,  upon  re-cross  examination,  in  his  persuasive  subtle 
way,  he  asked  him  the  question  and  Copley  evidently  thought 
"surely  Darrow  is  my  friend  and  I  think  I  know  what  he 
wants,"  so  he  says,  "Yes,  I  got  the  idea  that  he  had  something 
to  do  with  it."  Here  within  a  few  days  and  a  few  hours  after 
this  explosion,  which  these  Pinkertons  here  manufactured, 
Mr.  Orchard  tells  Mr.  Copley,  gives  Mr.  Copley  to  under- 
stand that  this  man  got  what  he  deserved  and  that  Orchard 
had  something  to  do  with  it.  What  else  does  he  have  to  do 
with  Copley?  Why,  he  made  a  proposition  to  Copley  to  begin 
to  trim  coin.  There  is  a  peculiarity  about  this  man  Orchard ; 
it  is  his  familiarity,  in  criminal  matters,  with  the  leaders  of 
the  Western  Federation  of  Miners.  He  never  hesitated  to  dis- 
cuss with  them,  at  any  time,  any  criminal  bent  or  any  criminal 
scheme  which  he  had  in  his  head.  Whenever  he  wanted  to 
commit  crime  or  had  an  idea  about  committing  crime  he  went 
to  his  Father  Confessor,  one  of  the  Western.  Federation  of- 
ficials, and  told  him.  And  so  he  kept  on  committing  crime  and 
kept  on  talking  to  them  about  it  until  he  came  to  be  the  great- 
est criminal  of  the  twentieth  century.  He  says  to  Copley, 
"Copley,  I  think  we  can  do  some  business.  I  see  in  the  paper 
where  a  man  has  been  successful  in  trimming  coins,"  and  so 


95 

forth.     Well,  Copley,  of  course,  did  not  go  into  the  business. 
He  was  lecturing  upon  the  troubles  of  Cripple  Creek.     He 
considered  this  business  more  profitable  than  trimming  coins. 
What  next  happens?     Orchard  said  to  Mr.  Copley,  "I  am 
going  to  get  out  of  San  Francisco.     Have  you  any  objection 
to  me  coming  over  here  and  disidentifying  myself?"    Now  re-» 
member,  this  man  had  been  telling  Copley  about  this  explo- 
sion— how  he  came  to  be  talking  about  a  gas  explosion  I  do 
not  know— and  he  told  him  that  the  man  had   gotten  what 
he  deserved,  and  he  had  given  him  the  impression  that  he  had 
something  to  do  with  it ;  and  the  next  thing  he  said  to  him 
was,  "I  have  a  suit  of  soldier's  clothes  and  I  would  like  to 
come  over  here  and  put  them  on  so  I  can  get  into  Denver 
without  being  identified."     That  is  the  story  which  Mr.  Cop- 
ley tells.     Now  you  know  precisely  why  Mr.  Orchard  put  on 
the  soldier's  clothes  a  thousand  miles  from  Denver.     He  put 
them  on,  not  to  get  into  Denver,  but  to  get  out  of  San  Fran- 
cisco, the  place  where  he  had  attempted  to  commit  murder. 
And  that,  taken  in  connection  with  the  fact  that  he  had  told 
about  this  matter  and  taken  in  connection  with  the  fact  that 
he  had  been  there  shadowing  this  house  and  'that  Copley  un- 
derstood that  he  had  had  something  to  do  with  this,  was  suf- 
ficient to  have  satisfied  any  mind  on  earth,  except  Copley's, 
that  he  had  committed  crime.     But  nothing  like  crime  would 
be  entertained  by  Mr.  Copley,  so  he  saw  this  man  leave  San 
Francisco  with  a  suit  of  soldier's  clothes  on  and  a  pair  of  spec- 
tacles, or  goggles,  in  order  that  he  might  get  back  into  Den- 
ver safely.    Back  to  Denver !    From  Denver  to  San  Francisco ! 
The  crime  is  finished,  I  have  done  all  I  can,  so  back  to  Den- 
ver!   What  was  the  power  which  drew  him  back  to  Denver? 
Wander  where  he  would  and  do  what  he  might,   when  the 
crime  was  finished  he  took  the  trail  straight  for  the  city  of 


96 

Denver.  What  was  the  invisible  chain  which  bound  him  to 
this  city  on  the  plateau?  Back  to  the  immortal  George  A. 
Pettibone — "friend  of  humanity,"  says  Darrow — "a  Happy 
Hooligan,"  says  Mr.  Darrow.  But  there  is  something  about 
this  Hooligan  which  is  a  little  different  from  the  Hooligan 
which  we  know;  Hooligan  has  a  passion  to  talk;  Pettibone 
believes  silence  is  golden.  While  Orchard  is  down  in  San 
Francisco  who  is  his  banker?  From  who  does  he  get  his  sup- 
port, his  help,  his  money?  "Lest  we  forget."  I  am  of  the 
opinion  that  my  subtle  friend  thought  that  there  might  be 
something  in  this  Pettibone  matter  which  would  need  expla- 
nation. He  undoubtedly  said  to  himself,  "I  am  out  here  try- 
ing a  case  before  twelve  men  with  whom  I  am  not  very  fa- 
miliar. They  may  want  some  explanation  of  Mr.  Pettibone's 
action.  As  reasonable  men  they  demand  this  and  I  guess  we 
had  better  give  them  some  kind  of  an  explanation."  And  so 
at  one  time  he  summoned  his  courage  and  he  said  to  you  in 
the  opening  address  that  this  money  was  wired  to  Orchard 
on  two  occasions,  possibly  three,  by  Pettibone.  He  wired 
him  money  after  Orchard  had  told  him  how  to  send  it,  under 
what  name  to  send  it  and  what  name  Pettibone  should  use 
when  he  sent  it.  Pettibone,  unsophisticated,  just  a  child,  never 
had  any  experience  in  sending  money,  buying  shot  guns,  or  do- 
ing any  business  of  that  kind.  So  he  acts  in  docile  obedience 
to  Orchard's  instructions.  Pettibone  must  use  the  name  of 
Wolfe,  under  the  instructions  of  Orchard — Wolfe  or  Pat  Bone. 
That  he  must  send  the  money  and  it  must  be  released  with- 
out identification.  Orchard  gives  him  the  strictest  instruc- 
tions about  it  and  Pettibone  did  it  just  as  Orchard  told  him. 
That  is  all  there  is  about  it.  Now  this  is  the  testimony  of 
Mr.  Darrow. 

Mr.  Darrow :    Not  the  last  part,  isn't. 


97 

Mr.  Borah:  Isn't  it? 

Mr.  Darrow:     I  think  the  evidence  was,  "have  it  released 
so  that  it  could  be  paid  to  him,"  that  is,  I  think  so. 

Mr.  Borah :     I  was  reading  from  your  opening  statement. 

Mr.  Darrow:  Well,  I  think  we  corroborated  that  part  of 
it. 

Mr.  Borah :  Perhaps  I  should  say  that  this  is  the  uncorrobo- 
rated testimony  of  Mr.  Darrow. 

Well,  what  happened  while  Orchard  was  in  San  Francisco 
with  reference  to  this  money  matter?  Orchard,  being  a  gam- 
bler, of  course  he  had  to  have  a  banker — in  your  mind.  He 
went  to  San  Francisco,  they  say,  wrote  back  and  told  them  to 
send  down  his  union  card ;  going  down  there  to  gamble  with 
the  soldiers,  but  he  might  need  his  union  card  so  as  to  get  in 
touch  with  his  union  friends — send  down  his  watch  charm. 
So  Mr.  Wolfe  testifies,  of  course,  that  that  is  just  exactly 
what  was  sent  in  that  letter.  The  letter  was  covered  up ;  there 
was  no  trouble  for  Wolfe  to  testify  to  what  was  in  it ;  there 
was  no  money  in  that  letter,  Wolfe  is  sure  of  that.  The  con- 
tents of  the  letter  were  hidden  from  the  world,  therefore,  there 
was  nothing  in  it  but  a  union  card  and  a  few  other  trinkets. 
But  the  registered  letter  went  and  Orchard  says  there  was 
$100  in  it.  The  probabilities  are  with  you. 

Again  a  few  days  afterwards  a  telegram  is  sent  from  this 
same  Wolfe,  at  least  under  his  name,  and  there  was  no  con- 
sealment  possible  in  this  matter  because  it  was  open  to  the  in- 
spection of  the  world.  Now  you  know  that  Orchard  received 
money  from  Pettibone.  You  would  like  to  know  why  he  re- 
ceived it.  Orchard  says  that  it  was  sent  to  sustain  him  while 
he  was  committing  this  crime,  and  you  know  that  it  was  sent 
at  a  time  when  he  was  shadowing  the  house  of  Bradley.  You 
would  like  to  know  why  it  was  sent.  We  have  an  explanation 


98 

of  the  letter — nothing  in  it  but  a  card  and  some  trinkets.  But 
the  telegrams  are  here  unexplained.  They  say  that  Pettibone 
was  sending  money,  not  to  Dempsey,  not  to  Tom  Hogan,  not 
to  Harry  Orchard,  but  to  Harry  Green.  Why  didn't  this  man 
Wolfe  tell  us,  explain  why  this  money  was  sent;  it  was  sent 
in  his  name,  he  knows  about  the  letter ;  that  is  easy.  But  the 
telegram  is  more  difficult.  So  he  goes  upon  the  witness  stand, 
explains  the  letter,  and  keeps  silent  as  to  the  telegram.  Mr. 
Pettibone,  one  of  the  men  who  is  charged  here,  and  he  re- 
fuses to  testify,  sent  Mr.  Orchard  money  and  held  him  up, 
aided,  abetted  and  encouraged  him  while  he  was  down  there 
trying  to  commit  this  crime.  No  evidence?  No  corrobora- 
tion?  The  silence  of  this  man  is  a  thousand  times  stronger 
than  Harry  Orchard's  testimony.  It  is  corroboration  of  the 
most  powerful  kind.  You  know  that  the  relationship  of 
Orchard  and  of  Pettibone  was  close.  The  circumstances 
show  their  relationship  at  the  very  hour  of  crime,  but  his  lips 
are  closed  and  these  incriminating  matters  are  left  undenied. 
Of  course  I  agree  with  Mr.  Darrow  that  it  was  wise  to  keep 
him  off  the  stand — one  more  chance  at  least  for  Mr.  Pettibone. 
Now,  candidly,  why  should  not  Pettibone  go  on  the  stand 
and  tell  you  about  these  telegrams?  What  difference  does  it 
make  about  Pettibone  sending  a  few  hundred  dollars  down  to 
San  Francisco  to  a  man  who  was  there  simply  to  play  cards 
with  the  soldiers?  How  could  this  incriminate  Pettibone? 
Would  there  be  anything  criminal  in  the  fact  that  Pettibone 
sent  $150  to  a  man  in  San  Francisco  about  the  time  that  there 
was  a  gas  explosion  ?  If  they  believe  this  a  gas  explosion,  if 
they  believe  the  poisoning  of  the  milk  is  a  fake,  there  would 
be  no  reason  in  the  world  why  Pettibone  should  not  put  him- 
self here  upon  the  witness  stand  and  say,  "Yes,  I  sent  this 
money,"  but  there  is  the  knowledge  of  their  own  conscious- 


99 

ness  of  the  crime — sometimes  stronger  than  any  other  fact  in 
guiding  men  in  their  actions — the  inward  consciousness  of 
wrong  upon  the  part  of  Pettibone,  and  he  keeps  silent.  He 
knows  that  while  you  are  up  here  talking  about  gas  explo- 
sions and  the  fact  that  Orchard  couldn't  get  on  the  flat  roof, 
he  knows  that  that  explosion  was  a  bomb  explosion,  he  knows 
that  he  did  get  on  the  roof  and  he  knows  that  Pettibone  helped 
along  with  these  matters.  It  will  not  do  to  say  that  Pettibone 
can  keep  quiet;  it  does  not  answer  the  charge  in  this  case. 

Another  matter  for  reflection.  After  Orchard  left  San 
Francisco,  no  more  poisoned  milk.  After  Orchard  left  San 
Francisco  Mr.  Bradley's  residence  seems  safe  enough — no 
more  gas  explosions.  Somehow  and  in  some  way  the  pres- 
ence of  this  man  always  insured  trouble  to  the  enemies  of 
the  Western  Federation.  When  he  was  around  strychnine  got 
into  the  milk,  and  bombs  were  found  at  the  doors.  You  will 
find  throughout  this  entire  story  just  that  kind  of  unquestioned 
proof. 

If  Pettibone  did  send  this  money,  where  did  he  get  it? 
.Orchard  says  that  it  was  the  understanding  that  all  the  money 
was  to  be  paid  to  him  through  Pettibone.  We  have  proof  in 
this  case  that  not  a  dollar  can  be  paid  out  of  the  Western 
Federation  funds  without  the  signature  of  this  defendant.  We 
have  proven  the  close  relationship  of  the  defendant  and  Petti- 
bone. Pettibone  had  no  reason  to  be  active  in  this  matter 
except  as  a  member  of  the  Western  Federation. 

Gentlemen  of  the  jury,  there  is  no  way  by  which  you  can 
rconcile  all  the  circumstances  and  facts  in  this  case  with  the 
innocence  of  this  defendant.  His  connection  with  these  affairs 
is  unexplainable  upon  the  theory  of  innocence.  Orchard's 
testimony  is  direct  and  positive,  and  these  facts,  piled  one 
upon  another,  makes  the  State's  case  unanswerable. 

(Adjourned.) 


100 

Gentlemen  of  the  jury,  there  is  an  understanding  between 
the  court  and  myself  that  the  discussion  of  evidence  in  this 
case  shall  close  tonight.  I  expect  to  carry  out  that  under- 
standing, which  I  have  no  doubt  you  will  be  glad  to  know.  In 
order  to  do  that  it  must  necessarily  follow  that  a  vast  amount 
of  territory  covered  by  the  evidence  must  be  left  uncovered 
by  the  argument;  it  would  be  impossible  for  me  to  take  up 
and  discuss  all  the  different  matters  in  Colorado  and  the  evi- 
dence which  refers  to  those  matters — this  is  especially  true 
in  view  of  the  fact  of  the  great  heat  this  evening.  But  you 
have  listened  to  the  testimony  of  the  witnesses  in  regard  to 
these  affairs  and  you  will  apply  the  evidence  to  the  general 
principles  discussed  as  carefully  as  though  I  took  up  the  time 
in  going  into  details.  First,  I  want  to  call  your  attention  to 
a  matter  which  slipped  my  mind  in  connection  with  the  Brad- 
ley affair.  I  stated  that  Mr.  Orchard  started  for  California 
from  Denver  when  he  went  to  kill  Bradley.  Undoubtedly  the 
thought  suggested  itself  to  your  mind  that  I  should  call  at- 
tention to  the  testimony  of  Dr.  McGee,  because  if  his  testi- 
mony be  true  it  would  appear  that  Orchard  did  not  start  from^ 
Denver  but  from  Wallace.  It  would  appear  also  that  Mr. 
Orchard  was  untruthful.  Therefore  I  must  call  your  attention 
for  a  moment  to  McGee's  testimony.  Mr.  Darrow  wanted  to 
know  if  I  would  say  that  Dr.  McGee  was  liar.  I  will  say  in 
answer  that  I  will  not  say  that  Dr.  McGee  is  a  liar.  I  am  not 
in  the  habit  of  saying  that  in  the  court  room  any  more  than 
I  can  help,  and  I  never  say  it  outside  of  the  court  room  to 
a  man  as  large  as  Dr.  McGee.  I  will  try  and  reconcile  his 
statement  with  the  theory  of  his  honest  intention  to  tell  the 
truth.  It  appears  that  Dr.  McGee  came  to  Boise  and  was 
present  in  the  court  room.  The  impeaching  question  which 
Mr.  Richardson  put  to  Orchard  fixed  the  time  of  McGee's  con- 


101 

versation  in  the  fall  of  1905.  If  you  will  recollect,  the  first 
question  propounded  to  Mr.  Orchard  relative  to  his  talk  with 
McGee  in  the  town  of  Wallace  referred  not  to  the  fall  of  1904 
but  to  the  fall  of  1905.  We  know  as  a  matter  of  fact  that 
Orchard  was  there  in  the  fall  of  1905.  In  other  words,  Dr. 
McGee  must  have  been  in  doubt  himself  as  to  when  this  con- 
versation took  place.  If  it  took  place  in  1905,  there  is  no  con- 
tradiction between  Orchard  and  McGee,  and  he  undoubtedly 
fixed  the  date  as  1905  in  the  first  instance.  It  was  in  1905 
that  Orchard  was  there  and  left  this  Peabody  bomb,  turned 
it  over  to  a  man  by  the  name  of  Cunningham.  This  is  another 
fact  which  tends  to  show  that  it  was  1905,  because  McGee  says 
that  Orchard  was  in  company  with  Cunningham.  All  these 
things  lead  me  to  believe  that  the  doctor  was  mistaken  as  to 
the  time. 

Again,  if  Mr.  Orchard  had  been  in  the  city  of  Wallace  in 
the  fall  of  1905,  it  seems  entirely  probable  he  would  have  met 
some  one  whom  he  knew,  some  of  his  old  associates.  He 
would  likely  have  gone  to  the  residence  of  Mr.  Paulsen.  As 
Mr.  Darrow  frankly  admits  it  does  seem  strange  that  this  is 
the  only  witness  who  claims  to  have  seen  Orchard  in  Wallace 
in  1904,  whereas  there  is  plenty  of  evidence  he  was  there  in 
1905.  In  addition  to  this,  we  brought  some  direct  testimony 
here  to  the  effect  that  Mr.  Orchard  was  in  the  city  of  Denver 
at  the  time  McGee  thought  he  was  in  the  city  of  Wallace.  Mr. 
Mosher  so  testifies.  Now  if  you  desire,  you  can  reconcile  the 
McGee  testimony  upon  the  basis  of  honesty  upon  the  part  of 
McGee — it  is  perfectly  easy  for  you  to  do  this.  I  am  perfectly 
willing  that  as  jurors  you  shall  always  harmonize  a  man's 
testimony  with  the  theory  of  his  honesty  when  that  can  be 
done. 


102 
Orchard's  Loyalty. 

In  this  connection  I  want  to  call  your  attention  to  another 
matter  in  regard  to  Orchard.  A  great  deal  has  been  said 
about  Orchard's  attempt  to  fasten  this  crime  upon  the  de- 
fendant. The  suggestion  has  often  been  thrown  out  that  at 
the  time  he  was  committing  these  crimes,  going  about  here 
and  there,  he  had  the  ultimate  design  and  purpose  of  fasten- 
ing these  crimes  upon  this  defendant.  I  call  your  attention 
to  the  fact  that  Mr.  Orchard  throughout  these  entire  four 
years  was  perfectly  loyal  to  the  Western  Federation  of  Miners 
dnd  to  its. officials.  If  it  had  been  his  design  to  fasten  this 
crime  upon  the  defendant  he  would  have  preserved  instead  of 
destroying  the  testimony — he  would  have  held  the  letters  in- 
stead of  destroying  them.  He  had  an  opportunity  to  gather 
up  evidence  against  these  parties,  take  advantage  of  their  as- 
sociation— he  could  have  arranged  matters  so  the  evidence 
would  have  been  overpowering,  conclusive.  He  could  have 
preserved  his  telegrams  from  Pettibone,  his  letters  from  Pet- 
tibone,  his  letters  from  Haywood,  could  have  placed  them  in 
a  position  where  the  evidence  would  have  been  final  and  con- 
clusive. But  he  did  not  do  so.  Until  he  made  his  confession 
he  studiously  and  industriously  destroyed  everything  that 
would  tend  to  incriminate  the  defendant  or  his  associates. 

So  far  as  his  being  associated  with  the  mine  owners  or  the 
Pinkertons  is  concerned,  if  he  had  anything  to  do  with  these 
parties  it  is  clear  that  he  never  at  any  time  undertook  to  build 
up  a  case  against  this  defendant.  His  first  determination  to 
tell  what  he  knew  came  after  he  was  arrested  and  was  placed 
in  prison  and  after  he  had  time  to  think  over  the  matter.  Such 
other  evidence  as  we  have  in  this  case  we  have  had  to  go  to 
the  four  corners  of  the  earth  to  secure.  Such  other  evidence 


103 

is  the  evidence  which  he  left  upon  his  trail  and  which  it  was  not 
within  his  power  to  destroy.  His  were  not  the  acts  of  a  man 
who  had  a  design  and  purpose  of  putting  a  rope  around  tile- 
defendant's  neck,  as  Mr.  Darrow  has  told  you.  He  was  sim- 
ply bent  on  crime,  he  was  the  emissary  of  a  criminal  organi- 
zation. He  did  his  work  thoroughly  and  completely  and  did 
it  loyally. 

Another  thing  you  should  remember  is  that  Mr.  Orchard 
never  did  a  day's  work  after  the  Independence  depot  explosion 
of  August  6,  1904.  He  had  no  income  save  that  which  he  de- 
rived from  the  Western  Federation  of  Miners ;  he  had  no  em- 
ployment. He  was  going  here  and  there,  traveling  all  over 
the  country,  spending  money.  Where  did  he  get  it?  Who  sup- 
plied it?  Why  would  he  take  it  upon  himself  at  his  own  ex- 
pense and  of  his  own  motion  to  go  about  over  the  country 
killing  men?  He  did  not  rob  them  when  he  killed  them.  He 
did  not  make  pecuniary  gain  an  incident.  There  was  an  out- 
side motive,  another  reason — some  one  was  associated  with 
him  and  holding  him  up.  These  are  matters  which  I  want 
you  to  consider  and  to  which  I  call  your  attention  before  pass- 
ing on  to  the  Colorado  situation.  They  throw  much  light  upon 
the  fact  that  somewhere,  in  some  way,  there  was  connected 
with  Harry  Orchard  a  powerful  influence,  a  powerful  factor, 
aiding,  abetting  and  supporting  him. 

I  think  it  is  very  clear  also  that  after  the  6th  of  August, 
1904,  Harry  Orchard  was  a  fugitive  from  justice;  he  was  a 
suspect.  They  wanted  him  for  the  crime  of  the  Independence 
depot  explosion.  It  was  very  clear  that  it  was  the  opinion 
that  he  was  wanted,  and  it  is  very  clear  that  during  all  this 
time  he  received  benefits  from  the  Western  Federation  of 
Miners,  in  confidential  relation  with  and  supported  by  them. 
He  was  always  in  touch,  from  the  6th  day  of  June,  1904,  un- 


104 

til  the  awful  murder  of  December  30,  1905,  with  some  officer 
of  the  Western  Federation  of  Miners.  For  a  time  he  was 
stopping  at  Pettibone's  house,  loafing  at  his  store,  or  he  is 
with  Mr.  Moyer,  or  he  is  walking  and  talking  with  Mr.  Hay- 
wood,  or  he  is  with  Mr.  Copley  in  San  Francisco;  with  Davis 
at  Cheyenne  or  Moore  in  Denver — always  in  touch  with  the 
high  officials  of  the  Western  Federation  of  Miners — 1jiis  fu- 
gitive from  justice,  this  man  whom  they  now  call  a  tin-horn 
gambler,  this  greatest  criminal  of  the  age.  Can  there  be  any 
doubt  in  your  mind  from  what  source  came  his  support,  his 
aid  and  comfort?  Can  there  be  any  doubt  in  your  mind  how 
he  lived  and  for  whom  he  lived  and  for  whom  he  did  his 
work?  Can  there  be  any  doubt  in  your  mind  that  they  knew 
he  was  a  criminal  and  thus  harbored  him? 

Colorado   Situation. 

As  I  said  to  you  this  morning,  Mr.  Haywood  cannot  be 
convicted  here  for  any  crime  committed  in  Colorado.  You 
are  trying  him  upon  one  charge.  We  go  into  the  Colorado 
situation  for  the  purpose  of  ascertaining  if  there  be  any 
facts  which  tend  to  prove  the  ultimate  fact  to  be  proven, 
and  that  is  his  connection  with  the  crime  at  Caldwell.  It 
does  not  follow,  therefore,  that  the  State  must  prove  in  this 
case  each  particular  crime  in  Colorado  beyond  reasonable 
doubt.  There  is  only  one  thing  that  we  must  show  in  this 
case  beyond  a  reasonable  doubt  and  that  is  the  fact  that 
the  defendant  was  connected  with  the  offense  at  Caldwell. 
And  if  all  the  circumstances  and  all  the  facts  piled  upon  one 
another  and  connected  with  one  another  finally  satisfy  you  of 
this  ultimate  proposition,  then  the  State  has  made  its  case. 
We  do  not  have  to  show  beyond  a  reasonable  doubt  that  he 
exploded  the  bomb  which  killed  McCormick  and  Beck.  We 
do  not  have  to  show  beyond  a  reasonable  doubt  that  he  ex- 


105 

plodecl  the  bomb  which  killed  the  fourteen  men  at  the  Inde- 
pendence depot.  We  do  not  have  to  show  beyond  a  reason- 
able doubt  that  he  killed  Lyte  Gregory — we  simply  propose 
to  take  all  these  facts  and  circumstances  and  satisfy  you  of 
his  long  association  with  this  organization  as  a  basis  from 
which  we  will  reason  that  it  was  probable  they  were  con- 
nected together  in  the  Steunenberg  murder.  From  all  these 
transactions  in  Colorado  you  will  endeavor  to  ascertain  what 
the  relationship  of  Orchard  was  to  these  crimes  and  what  the 
relationship  of  Orchard  was  to  this  organization,  for  all  these 
throw  light  upon  the  ultimate  fact  to  be  proven.  As  I  said 
before,  one  circumstance  standing  alone  may  be  very  weak, 
but  two  circumstances  standing  together  gather  strength,  and 
three  circumstances  become  stronger,  and  then  adding  other 
circumstances  and  so  on  the  chain  becomes  complete  and  the 
proof  conclusive.  Circumstantial  evidence  is  sometimes 
stronger  to  the  mind  as  a  matter  of  proof  than  direct  evi- 
dence. For  instance,  a  man  may  say,  "I  saw  John  Jones  shoot 
Smith  at  a  certain  place."  That  man  may  be  lying.  But  if 
you  get  a  chain  of  circumstances  composed  of  facts  which 
are  not  subject  to  manufacture — if  you  take  telegrams,  reg- 
istered letters  and  that  class  of  evidence  and  build  up  a  com- 
plete chain  of  circumstances,  it  becomes  more  convincing 
than  direct  evidence.  This  is  the  reason  why  we  are  in  Colo- 
rado, for  the  purpose  of  getting  a  complete  chain  of  circum- 
stances, for  the  purpose  of  showing  association  and  motive, 
for  the  purpose  of  completing  the  conspiracy  and  showing 
the  design  and  purpose,  for  the  purpose  of  showing  the  re- 
lationship between  these  parties.  All  these  things  help  to 
develop  the  common  motive,  the  common  design,  the  com- 
mon purpose,  in  other  words,  that  Peabody  and  Bell  and 
Goddard  and  Steunenberg  all  stood  within  the  firing  line  of 
this  organization. 


106 
Extradition. 

Something  has  been  said  with  reference  to  the  manner  in 
which  these  men  were  brought  from  Colorado — their  kidnap- 
ing, so-called.  Only  a  word  in  regard  to  that:  If  these  men 
were  not  legally  here  they  would  not  be  here — they  would 
not  have  stayed  here.  If  there  was  anything  illegal  or  de- 
fective in  regard  to  the  manner  of  bringing  them  here,  I  ap- 
prehend the  very  able  counsel  who  represent  them  would 
not  have  permitted  them  to  remain  here,  because  they  made 
a  heroic  effort  to  get  them  away.  But  that  is  a  question  with 
which  you  are  not  concerned.  The  only  matter  with  which 
you  have  to  deal  is  whether  or  not  the  defendant  was  con- 
nected with  the  offense  at  Caldwell.  If  he  was  so  connected 
with  that  offense  then  it  was  the  Idaho  law  that  was  violated. 
It  was  a  citizen  of  Idaho  who  was  murdered.  If  he  was  con- 
nected with  this  offense  it  was  in  this  jurisdiction  where  he 
raised  the  red  hand  and  it  is  right  and  proper  that  a  jury  of 
Idaho  men  should  sit  in  judgment  upon  the  men  charged 
with  the  commission  of  that  crime.  True,  as  said  by  Mr. 
Darrow,  he  is  a  stranger  to  you.  But  he  is  just  as  safe  in  the 
hands  of  the  men  here  as  he  would  be  in  the  State  of  Colorado. 
He  will  never  be  convicted  unless  the  evidence  satisfies  you 
beyond  reasonable  doubt.  He  will  not  be  convicted  upon 
prejudice  or  by  reason  of  his  being  a  stranger.  Everything 
that  the  law  provides  has  been  thrown  around  this  trial  and 
he  has  been  safeguarded  in  every  respect.  They  have  been 
given  every  latitude  vouchsafed  to  a  defendant.  The  rules  of 
examination  and  cross-examination  of  witnesses  have  been  ex- 
tended fully  and  freely  to  the  limit.  But  the  counsel  seem 
particularly  out  of  humor  because  these  men  were  brought 
here  in  company  with  Buckley  Wells.  Just  what  that  has  to 


107 

do  with  their  guilt  or  innocence  is  not  apparent.  This  is  the 
young  man  who  they  say  has  a  Harvard  accent.  If  you 
should  happen  to  have  a  boy  who  has  an  mbition  to  get  an 
education  and  who  desires  to  go  to  Harvard,  pull  him  back. 
He  is  going  in  the  wrong  direction.  If  he  should  succeed  in 
becoming  a  successful  student  of  that  institution  it  would  be 
justification  for  a  verbal  assault  if  not  something  worse.  It 
is  no  discredit  to  Mr.  Wells  that  he  worked  his  way  through 
Harvard,  and  I  apprehend  that  kind  of  logic  will  not  satisfy 
a  jury  as  to  the  guilt  or  innocence  of  this  defendant.  Mr. 
Wells  was  simply  Adjutant  General  of  the  State  of  Colorado. 
He  came  here  in  company  with  these  men  by  direction  of  the 
Governor  of  that  State. 

Pinkertons. 

One  of  the  first  things  we  have  to  encounter  in  the  Colorado 
situation  is  that  there  were  a  great  many  Pinkertons  in  Colo- 
rado and  that  they  did  a  great  deal  of  devilment  down  there 
by  getting  into  the  unions.  It  is  further  charged  that  the 
State  of  Idaho  has  employed  Pinkertons  for  the  purpose  of 
gathering  evidence  in  this  case.  That  is  true.  The  State  has 
employed  some  Pinkertons  and  paid  them,  and  the  fact  that 
there  have  been  some  deficiency  warrants  issued,  if  such  be 
the  fact,  is  not  a  matter  about  which  counsel  for  the  defense 
need  feel  uneasy.  The  State  is  willing  to  pay  in  order  to  find 
out  whether  we  have  a  system  of  laws  which  protect  the 
lives  of  its  citizens,  and  no  appeal  to  a  jury  upon  the  question 
of  taxes  will  answer  the  great  question  or  satisfy  the  mind 
as  to  who  killed  Frank  Steunenberg.  If  there  has  been  any 
squandering  of  money  we  have  a  board  which  audits  the 
bills,  and  toward  the  conclusion  of  that  auditing  I  should  like 
to  compare  the  counsel's  compensation  with  mine.  They 


108 

called  Mr.  Friedman — or  Freakman  it  ought  to  be — to  the 
witness  stand.  He  had  been  employed  by  the  Pinkertons, 
in  their  employ  for  two  or  three  years — a  stenographer.  I 
think  he  was  the  private  stenographer  of  "Father  McParland," 
the  man  who  has  all  kinds  of  schemes  in  his  brain  for  the 
purpose  of  convicting  innocent  men,  of  putting  upon  innocent 
men  crimes — so  they  say.  They  did  a  great  deal  of  hinting  as 
to  what  they  were  going  to  uncover  by  bringing  forth  Mr. 
Friedman  with  his  letters,  and  what  did  they  show?  I  felt 
quite  sure  they  would  prove  Harry  Orchard  was  a  Pinkerton. 
I  supposed  they  would  at  least  get  in  touch  with  him  some- 
where. I  supposed  they  would  show  something  in  regard  to 
the  mine  owners  having  been  guilty  of  the  blowing  up  of 
the  Independence  depot.  In  fact,  when  I  looked  into  the  fel- 
low's face  I  did  not  know  what  they  would  show.  I  knew 
he  would  go  to  his  full  capacity.  I  knew  that  a  man  who 
would  steal  letters,  steal  them  with  a  purpose  and  design — he 
did  steal  them  and  bring  them  here — would  do  anything  with- 
in his  power.  Well,  they  finally  succeeded  in  showing  that 
the  Mine  Owners'  Association  was  not  a  client  of  the  Pinker- 
tons  at  all  in  1903-4.  They  broke  the  backbone  of  their  own 
conspiracy.  Is  not  that  true  ?  Did  you  find  anything  in  those 
letters  showing  a  conspiracy?  Certainly  not;  you  found  the 
very  opposite.  They  disproved  utterly  the  connection  of  the 
Pinkertons  with  the  Mine  Owners'  Association  and  disproved 
utterly  the  connection  of  the  Mine  Owners'  Association  with 
any  of  these  crimes.  It  appears  that  Mr.  Londoner  went  down 
to  Cripple  Creek  a  day  or  two  after  the  Independence  depot 
explosion  and  he  gave  us  a  graphic  description  of  conditions 
there  prevailing.  Londoner  was  a  Pinkerton.  What  does  he 
say  about  the  miners — this  organization  that  was  after  the 
miners  to  fasten  crimes  upon  them?  -  Why,  the  best  certificate 


109 

of  character  that  has  been  given  in  Cripple  Creek  to  the  West- 
ern Federation  of  Miners  was  given  by  Londoner.  So  if  there 
is  anything  in  the  way  of  proof  of  Londoner's  letter  it  would 
be  that  the  Western  Federation  of  Miners  was  a  client  of  the 
Pinkertons  rather  than  the  Mine  Owners'  Association.  I  do 
not  suppose  they  really  were  clients  of  the  Pinkertons,  but 
the  proof  tends  to  show  that  rather  than  the  opposite. 

Mr.  Redell  was  also  a  Pinkerton.  He  went  down  to  Tellu- 
ride  and  joined  the  union,  got  to  be  secretary  and  remained  an 
officer  of  that  organization  for  some  time.  It  appears  that 
Mr.  Collins  had  been  assassinated  and  that  Barney  and  Smith 
had  been  killed  or  mysteriously  disappeared ;  that  there  were 
mysterious  crimes  in  Telluride.  Apparently  there  was  no 
power  there  to  intercept  and  punish  the  criminals.  So  Redell 
went  into  Telluride,  and  you  can  imgine  what  he  went  for. 
He  had  his  suspicions  and  when  he  went  to  Rome  he  deter- 
mined to  do  as  the  Romans  did — he  talked  anarchy,  and  the 
more  he  talked  the  higher  he  climbed  officially  in  the  union. 
Is  not  that  true?  How  did  he  get  to  be  an  officer?  How  does 
it  happen  that  this  man  who  they  say  was  talking  anarchy 
and  lawlessness  was  elected  to  a  high  office  in  the  union 
and  kept  there  if  the  union  did  not  believe  in  such  things. 
General  Engley  went  down  to  Telluride  and  the  only  fault 
he  found  with  Redell  was  that  he  did  not  talk  it  strong 
enough.  He  said  he  talked  with  him  for  a  few  moments  and 
found  out  he  did  not  know  anything  about  philosophical  an- 
archy— he  was  not  fit  to  be  secretary  of  the  union  or  anything 
else  in  Engley's  estimation.  But  what  did  Redell  do  in  the 
way  of  fastening  crime  upon  the  Western  Federation  of 
Miners?  He  did  not  do  anything  or  attempt  to  do  anything 
of  this  kind.  He  simply  kept  in  touch  with  the  organization 
for  the  purpose  of  ferreting  out  those  crimes  which  had  been 


110 

committed  in  that  district.  The  Pinkertons  were  employed 
for  the  purpose  of  uncovering  evidence.  They  have  not  been 
engaged  for  any  other  purpose  than  that  of  hunting  up  and 
gathering  the  evidence  which  was  in  existence.  For  instance, 
they  did  not  send  Jack  Simpkins  to  Caldwell,  but  they  found 
out  he  was  there.  They  did  not  prepare  Mrs.  Soward's  room 
with  the  evidence  of  Orchard's  guilt,  but  they  found  the  room 
in  the  condition  in  which  it  was  left.  They  did  not  send  the 
telegram  to  Orchard  in  the  name  of  Pat  Bone  or  Harry  Green, 
but  they  uncovered  it.  They  did  not  send  Orchard  to  Nam- 
pa  and  Caldwell,  but  they  found  the  hotel  register  which 
established  the  fact  that  he  was  there.  They  did  not  have 
Haywood  write  the  letter  to  Mrs.  Orchard,  but  they  found 
the  letter.  And  so  they  have  been  employed  in  this  case  and 
their  work  has  been  finished.  There  can  certainly  be  no  just 
criticism  upon  an  organization  which  faithfully  uncovers  and 
brings  into  court  the  conclusive  evidence  with  reference  to 
a  man's  guilt. 

Mine  Owners. 

But  it  appears  also  that  the  mine  owners  are  to  be  charged 
with  many  of  the  crimes  in  Colorado.  The  mine  owners  are 
like  all  the  rest  of  us- — they  are  human.  They  are  men  who 
have  gathered  their  money  together,  put  it  into  the  mines, 
taken  the  risk,  helped  develop  the  country,  and  there  is  no 
evidence  in  this  cas  of  any  wrong  doing  upon  their  part  to- 
ward the  Western  Federation  of  Miners  until  after  the  strike 
occurred  in  Colorado.  Then  things  happened  on  both  sides 
which  may  be  subject  to  censure.  I  dq  not  know  as  to  this, 
but  I  do  know  that  the  evidence  establishes  beyond  a  ques- 
tion that  the  mine  owners  did  not  commence  this  trouble  and 
that  they  were  reasonable  and  fair  in  so  far  as  it  was  possible. 


Ill 

You  know  and  i  know  that  when  a  strike  occurs  there  is 
bound  to  be  trouble  and  no  one  can  tell  precisely  with  whom 
the  fault  rests.  But  there  is  no  evidence  that  the  mine  own- 
ers desired  to  do  annything  else  than  to  operate  their  prop- 
erties. But  in  this  connection,  to  show  what  they  had  to  con- 
tend with  I  want  to  read  an  agreement  which  has  been  in- 
troduced in  this  case.  This  is  as  follows :  "It  is  hereby 
agreed  between  the  Miners'  Union,  by  V.  St.  John,  president, 
and  the  Smuggler  Union  Mining  Company,  by  Edgar  A.  Col- 
lins (the  man  who  was  afterwards  murdered),  that  all  work 
shall  cease  on  said  mines  for  the  space  of  three  days,  com- 
mencing Friday  evening.  Also  that  said  Miners'  Union  will 
refrain  from  violence  either  to  person  or  property  for  the 
same  period.  That  said  Smuggler  Union  mine  is  to  have  the 
right  to  keep  four  men  as  watchmen  at  the  Bullion  tunnel, 
one  at  the  Penn  tunnel  and  one  on  the  Sheridan  dump.  Agreed 
this  3d  day  of  July,  1901.  .  Smuggler  Union  Mining  Company 
by  Edgar  A.  Collins,  Assistant  Manager.  V.  St.  John,  Pres- 
ident." That  is  signed  by  the  president  of  the  union  and  it  is 
agreed  that  just  for  a  time -they  will  restrain  themselves  from 
violence  to  person  and  property.  Is  violence  to  person  and 
property  a  tenet  of  the  Western  Federation  of  Miners?  Do 
they  simply  contract  to  hold  themselves  down  for  three  days? 
Is  it  so  much  a  part  of  their  creed  that  it  can  only  be  re- 
strained for  a  short  time  by  contract?  And  yet  they  say  this 
is  not  a  criminal  organization.  Remember  now  that  Collins 
was  afterwards  murdered.  I  presume  the  time  in  the  contract 
had  expired. 

Independence  Depot  Explosion. 

\\  e  will  refer  for  a  short  time  to  the  Independence  depot 
explosion  where  fourteen  men  were  killed  and  seven  maimed 


112 

for  life.  I  want  to  call  your  attention  in  the  first  place  to  the 
fact  that  this  explosion  was  not  an  accident.  The  men  who 
were  killed  there  were  not  killed  by  accident.  Those  who 
touched  off  that  explosion  did  not  intend  it  to  go  off  at  any 
other  time  than  the  time  when  these  men  were  at  the  depot. 
There  was  a  suggestion  by  Mr.  Darrow  in  his  opening  state- 
ment to  the  effect  that  this  depot  was  blown  up  simply  as  a 
scare,  that  it  was  not  intended  by  the  mine  owners  or  Pinker- 
tons  to  actually  kill  anybody — they  had  an  old  depot  of  little 
value  and  it  was  their  intention  to  explode  a  bomb  and  de- 
stroy the  depot  just  before  the  train  came  in,  but  not  kill  any- 
one, so  as  to  cause  an  uprising  of  feeling  in  the  community 
against  the  Western  Federation  of  Miners.  They  put  a  wit- 
ness on  the  stand,  Mr.  Blizard,  who  disproved  that  idea.  They 
asked  him  "What  was  its  condition?"  A.  "It  was  quite  a 
nice  up-to-date  station  with  waiting  room  and  a  large  office." 
Q.  "What  do  you  know  as  to  its  size,  ?"  A.  "I  do  not  know  but 
I  should  judge  one  hundred  feet  long  and  forty  or  fifty  feet 
wide."  Q.  "Was  there  a  platform?"  A.  "Yes,  there  was  a 
nice  large  platform  leading  down  to  the  track."  They  called 
no  other  witnesses  upon  this  subject.  They  abandoned  the 
proposition  of  showing  that  the  explosion  was  under  an  old 
worthless  depot,  and  abandoned  the  proposition  of  showing 
that  the  explosion  was  an  accident  as  to  time.  It  was  not 
selected  because  it  was  an  old  depot,  it  was  selected  because 
there  was  the  place  where  it  was  positivly  known  that  these 
non-union  men  got  on  and  off  the  train — they  were  the  only 
people,  practically  speaking,  that  used  the  depot.  When  the 
time  came  for  the  explosion  the  men  who  caused  the  explo- 
sion must  have  inevitably  known  these  men  were  there  at 
that  specific  moment  on  the  platform.  It  is  not  reasonable 
that  they  were  so  close  to  the  platform  and  yet  did  not  know 


113 

precisely  the  whereabouts  and  position  of  the  men.  It  was  the 
intention  of  those  manipulating  the  matter  to  kill  and  they 
did  kill  with  dreadful  certainty.  The  man  who  caused  that 
explosion  was  a  finished  murderer,  one  who  when  he  shot, 
shot  to  kill,  and  that  was  Harry  Orchard  and  one  other,  no 
less  a  pronounced  criminal — Steve  Adams. 

Is  there  any  possible  doubt  in  this  case,  under  all  the  evi- 
dence as  it  now  stands,  that  Harry  Orchard  blew  up  the  de- 
pot and  that  he  did  so  in  connection  with  Steve  Adams?  We 
were  not  able  to  prove  it  beyond  a  reasonable  doubt,  but  the 
^defense  did.  Their  evidence  must  satisfy  you  that  Harry 
Orchard  was  the  guilty  man.  Orchard  said  he  did  it,  the  de- 
fense showed  that  the  hounds  tracked  him,  and  now  Mr.  liar- 
row  is  forced  to  argue  that  Harry  Orchard  did  it,  and  we 
concede  it. 

What  else  is  shown?  Not  only  that  Harry  Orchard  was 
there,  but  also  another  personage  of  whom  you  have  heard 
considerable — Steve  Adams.  I  wonder  if  Steve — loyal  Steve 
— the  man  whom  they  are  now  defending  for  murder — I  won- 
der if  he  is  a  Pinkerton.  I  wonder  if  he  was  in  the  employ 
of  the  Mine  Owners'  Association  when  he  did  this.  I  wonder 
what  is  the  trouble  that  he  does  not  testify  in  this  case.  Now, 
let  us  see  if  Steve  was  there.  That  Orchard  did  it  is  now 
conceded  on  both  sides.  We  have  convinced  the  defense  of 
that  and  they  admit  it.  Orchard  testifies  that  Adams  assisted 
him.  At  the  time  they  are  hunting  for  Orchard,  they  put 
a  man  upon  the  stand  by  the  name  of  Blizard  and  he  testifies 
that  Sterling  told  him  that  Steve  Adams  was  one  of  the  men 
who  blew  up  the  depot.  In  addition  to  that  it  has  been 
proven  before  you  that  Steve  Adams  made  a  confession.  What 
that  confession  is  you  can  not  know.  But  it  has  been  proved 
that  a  confession  was  made.  So  we  have  the  statement  of 


114 

Orchard,  the  circumstances  proven  in  regard  to  Sterling  and 
the  hounds,  the  statement  of  Blizard,  a  confession  by  Orchard ; 
and  Adams,  their  client,  having  once  confessed,  now  silent 
and  afraid  to  testify. 

\Ye  have  had  two  explanations  as  to  why  Adams  did  not 
go  on  the  witness  stand.  These  explanations  do  not  har- 
monize exactly,  but  they  harmonize  as  well  perhaps  as  two 
unreasonable  propositions  could  be  made  to  do.  But  one 
thing  "must  be  apparent  to  you.  .  -  We  have  noticed  that  the 
defense  has  been  traveling  around  over  the  United  States  for 
the  purpose  of  gathering  up  a  little  piece  of  evidence  here  and. 
a  little  piece  of  evidence  there  to  be  used  in  showing  that 
Orchard  did  not  do  this  and  did  not  do  that.  Orchard  went 
upon  the  witness  stand  and  named  to  this  jury  and  to  this 
court  and  to  these  defendants,  his  associate,  the  man  who  was 
with  him  at  the  Independence  depot,  the  man  who  helped  kill 
Lyte  Gregory,  the  man  who  hunted  and  haunted  Peabody, 
Goddard,  Gabbert  and  Bell,  the  man  who  has  since  made  a 
confession.  There  is  the  only  man  who  could  satisfy  this 
jury  not  only  that  Orchard  was  mistaken  or  lying  as  to  this 
incident  or  that,  but  that  his  entire  statement  is  a  falsehood. 
What  a  powerful  club  we  placed  in  the  hands  of  the  defense — 
and  yet  they  dare  not  use  it.  Why?  Simply  because  down 
here  in  this  jail  is  the  man-killer  who  for  two  or  three  years 
was  the  hired  assassin  accompanying  Orchard  upon  all  his 
expeditions  of  crime.  He  has  confessed.  He  now  refuses  to 
stand  by  that  confession.  He  is  in  their  hands,  they  are  de- 
fending him  for  murder,  and  yet  he  dare  not  run  the  gauntlet 
of  an  examination  before  this  court. 

There  is  no  man  who  could  uncover  all  the  infamy  of  the 
State  as  it  has  been  pictured  by  the  defense,  like  this  man 
Adams.  He  was  up  here  in  the  penitentiary,  he  was  around 


115 

when  McParland  was  talking  to  Orchard — if  any  inducements 
were  held  out  to  Orchard  he  would  know  it,  he  has  been  with 
him  day  after  day  for  years,  knows  where  he  was,  what  he 
was  doing,  or  else  he  knows  Orchard  was  stating  a  falsehood 
from  beginning  to  end. 

They  say  Harry  Orchard's  confession  came  from  the  man- 
ufacturing establishment  of  Mr.  McParland.  They  would 
have  you  infer  also  that  he  tampered  with  Steve  Adams.  Why 
didn't  they  raise  this  lid?  Why  didn't  they  break  into  this 
manufacturing  establishment?  If  they  want  to  know  what 
kind  of  divine  ointment  Father  McParland  puts  upon  a  man's 
tongue  to  make  him  talk,  all  they  have  to  do  is  to  call  Steve 
Adams.  He  could  uncover  the  whole  transaction  and  show 
the  infamy  of  the  State  from  beginning  to  close  of  the  mat- 
ter. But  Steve,  like  Pettibone,  thinks  this  is  a  good  time 
to  keep  silence,  and  his  counsel  agree  with  him.  He  is  their 
client.  They  say  as  a  partial  excuse  that  he  must  be  tried 
for  murder  himself.  True,  he  is  being  tried  for  the  murder 
of  some  timber  jumpers  in  North  Idaho.  He  is  not  being  tried 
for  anything  connected  with  the  affairs  in  Colorado.  If  he  is 
guilty  of  those  things  he  could  be  tried,  but  if  Harry  Orchard's 
statement  is  false  and  Steve  Adams  was  not  at  the  Indepen- 
dence depot  explosion  at  all  there  was  no  possible  reason  why 
he  could  not  go  upon  the  stand  without  any  injury  to  himself 
and  clear  up  these  matters.  This  witness  is  in  a  position  to 
do  so  much  for  the  defense,  to  serve  them  so  effectively  if 
Orchard's  statement  is  not  true  that  only  a  controlling  inter- 
est could  keep  him  off  the  stand.  That  interest  must  have 
been  something  in  the  nature  of  his  inability  to  satisfy  this 
jury  that  he  was  not  at  the  Independence  depot  and  at  the 
murder  of  Lyte  Gregory. 

Mr.  Richardson  says  in  answer  to  the  charge  of  blowing  up 


116 

the  Independence  depot  that  such  an  act  would  have  been  the 
most  foolish,  the  most  unreasonable  thing  the  Western  Fed- 
eration of  Miners  could  have  done;  that  if  they  did  it  it  was 
of  more  injury  and  a  greater  detriment  to  their  cause  than 
anything  else  that  could  have  happened.  Well,  when  we 
come  to  talk  about  doing  foolish  things  I  want  to  refer  back 
to  the  29th  of  April,  1899.  Can  you  conceive  of  a  more  un- 
reasonable, foolish  or  injurious  act  upon  the  part  of  a  labor 
organization  than  their  act  upon  the  29th  of  April?  They 
went  out  in  the  open  day,  in  defiance  of  law,  put  themselves 
upon  record  as  a  criminal  organization,  destroyed  property 
and  committed  murder.  It  was  the  height  of  folly.  It  was 
unreasonable  from  every  standpoint,  almost  the  conduct  of  an 
insane  person.  It  brought  down  upon  them  the  condemna- 
tion of  the  entire  thinking  world.  But  we  find  that  the  test 
of  reason  or  unreason  is  not  the  test  to  apply  at  all  times  to 
the  action  of  this  organization.  You  see  the  motive  for  this 
crime,  the  Independence  depot  explosion.  What  reason  could 
any  one  have  had  for  committing  the  crime  other  than  the 
Western  Federation  of  Miners.  Let  me  call  your  attention  to 
a  little  matter  here  which  shows  conclusively  the  motive. 
You  will  remember  the  testimony  of  old  man  Stuart,  who 
testified  as  to  his  experience.  He  says  he  went  to  work  upon 
a  certain  day  as  a  non-union  man.  He  was  told  by  Minster 
that  if  he  went  to  work  he  would  have  to  take  the  conse- 
quences. But  he  went  to  work.  When  he  came  home  that 
night  who  was  it  visited  him?  Steve  Adams,  the  man  who 
helped  blow  up  the  Independence  depot,  and  for  the  same 
reason — Sherman  Parker,  William  Campbell,  Ed  Minster  and 
a  few  others.  They  took  the  old  man  out  of  his  house,  away 
from  the  pleading  family,  took  him  up  on  the  hillside,  beat 
him  up,  shot  him  and  left  him  for  dead.  They  undoubtedly 


117 

supposed  he  was  dead.  Why?  Simply  because  he  went  to 
work  upon  a  certain  day  in  defiance  of  the  dictates  of  the 
\\Vstern  Federation  of  Miners — no  other  reason  in  the  world; 
no  other  excuse  could  be  given  for  attacking  this  old  man ; 
simply  because  he  was  a  scab. 

Here  upon  the  Independence  depot  platform  were  some 
twenty  men  known  as  strike  breakers,  men  who  had  gone 
into  the  non-union  mines  and  were  at  work.  Every  mine  in 
that  district,  except  one,  the  Portland,  was  a  non-union  mine. 
The  Western  Federation  was  losing  the  fight.  They  were  en- 
raged at  the  strike  breakers.  They  believed  if  they  killed  a 
lot  of  these  scabs  the  rest  would  be  afraid  to  go  to  work  in 
the  district.  Here  was  the  motive.  They  say  this  was  the 
result  of  a  conspiracy  upon  the  part  of  the  mine  owners.  Pe- 
culiar conspiracy  which  had  for  its  object  the  destroying  of 
their  own  property  and  killing  their  own  men !  The  motive 
for  this  murder  at  the  Independence  depot  in  view  of  the  mul- 
titude of  facts  proven  in  this  case  is  conclusive. 

Now,  watch  the  actions  of  Adams  and  Orchard  immediately 
after  the  Independence  depot  explosion.  Orchard  starts  im- 
mediately by  wagon  to  Denver.  He  arrives  in  Denver  in  a 
few  days  and  goes  directly  to  headquarters.  Adams  starts 
across  country  afoot,  he  arrives  at  headquarters  almost  the 
same  time  Orchard  does.  These  men,  whom  the  evidence 
shows  as  being  the  guilty  parties,  strike  immediately  for 
headquarters  after  the  crime  is  committed.  Orchard  changes 
his  name  and  Adams  changes  his  name.  They  go  into  hiding. 
Orchard  finally  starts  out  and  Pettibone  helps  to  get  him 
ready.  They  concede  that  Pettibone  purchased  the  things 
which  Orchard  takes  with  him.  Now,  there  never  was  a 
day  after  the  Independence  depot  explosion  in  which  Orch- 
ard was  not  wanted  for  this  crime,  and  there  never  was  a  week 


118 

but  what  he  was  in  touch  with  the  Western  Federation  of 
Miners,  on  their  benefit  list  and  continued  to  be  so,  harbored 
and  taken  care  of  by  them  until  he  made  his  confession  to 
McParland  on  the  18th  day  of  February,  1906,  of  the  murder 
of  Steunenberg.  There  never  has  been  a  day  since  the  Inde- 
pendence depot  explosion  that  Adams  has  not  been  in  touch 
with  the  Western  Federation,  taken  care  of  by  them,  and  is 
now  being  defended  for  murder  by  their  counsel. 

Lyte  Gregory. 

One  more  matter  in  Colorado,  and  that  is  the  murder  of 
Lyte  Gregory.  It  was  stated  in  the  opening  that  the  evidence 
would  show  that  -the  Western  Federation  of  Miners  never 
had  any  grievance  against  Lyte  Gregory  and  knew  nothing 
about  him.  The  evidence  in  this  case,  on  the  other  hand, 
shows  conclusively  that  this  organization  did  have  something 
to  do  with  Lyte  Gregory  and  shows  that  the  organization 
regarded  him  as  a  spy  and  an  enemy.  It  appears  from  the 
evidence  of  Mr.  Copley,  Mr.  Sabin  and  Mr.  Haywood  him- 
self that  Gregory  was  a  detective ;  that  he  was  a  witness  in  a 
case  against  the  organization  at  Idaho  Springs,  despised  and 
hated  above  all  things  on  the  face  of  the  earth.  It  appears 
further  that  he  was  in  active  operation  as  a  detective  at  the 
time  Copley  was  tried.  He  might  not  actually  have  been 
called  as  a  witness,  but  I  do  not  apprehend  they  love  Mr. 
McParland  any  more  because  he  was  not  called  as  a  witness. 
I  apprehend  they  do  not  love  Mr.  Redell  any  more  or  hate 
him  any  less  because  he  was  not  called  as  a  witness.  That 
Gregory  was  a  deputy  sheriff  and  was  active  in  gathering 
testimony  in  that  case  is  now  proven  beyond  question  in  this 
case.  That  was  the  motive  for  his  killing  and  that  was  the 
motive  Orchard  testified  to.  Pettibone  found  him  up  in  Den- 


119 

ver  one  night,  went  to  ( )rchard — Pettibone,  this  man  with 
silent  lips — and  said,  "This  man  Lyte  Gregory  is  up  here  and 
we  would  like  to  make  an  example  of  him."  This  was  enough, 
and  Adams  and  Orchard  got  ready  for  the  trip.  They  start 
like  blood  hounds  upon  the  trail.  They  follow  him  from  the 
main  part  of  town,  armed  with  their  sawed-off  shot  guns, 
hunt  him  into  a  saloon,  watch  him  there  until  he  comes  to 
the  door  and  shoot  him  as  he  staggers  into  the  street.  Mr. 
Baldwin,  a  witness  upon  behalf  of  the  State,  directly  and 
minutely  corroborates  Orchard.  Orchard  states  they  went 
out  to  that  saloon  and  first  sat  down  in  the  front  room ;  that 
he  afterwards  went  into  a  little  ante-room  and  began  there 
a  game  of  cards.  Mr.  Baldwin  gives  the  movements  of  Greg- 
ory precisely  as  they  were  given  by  Orchard.  He  tells  you 
about  his  going  into  the  front  room  and  then  into  the  ante- 
room and  afterwards  passing  out  on  the  street  and  in  a  few 
moments  thereafter  being  murdered.  Mr.  Orchard  also  states 
there  was  present  a  man  by  the  name  of  Meldrum,  a  member 
of  the  Western  Federation  of  Miners.  That  when  Gregory 
was  shot  Meldrum  went  in  one  direction  and  Orchard  and 
Adams  in  another.  Where  is  this  member  of  the  'Federation  ? 
Mr.  Orchard  says  that  Pettibone  is  the  man  who  instigated 
that  murder.  Pettibone  is  here  and  does  not  deny  it.  Orch- 
ard says  that  Adams  assisted  him.  Adams  is  here  and  does 
not  deny  it.  Orchard  says  that  Meldrum  was  present,  and 
Meldrum  was  not  brought  to  disprove  it.  Baldwin  corrob- 
orates Orchard.  Now  it  is  not  necessary  for  you  to  be  con- 
vinced beyond  a  reasonable  doubt  that  Orchard  and  Adams 
killed  Gregory  at  the  instigation  of  Pettibone,  who  was  a 
member  of  the  conspiracy,  but  it  seems  that  the  evidence  is 
such  that  you  could  well  be  satisfied  beyond  a  resonable  doubt. 
Take  the  Independence  depot,  the  killing  of  Gregory,  the  evi- 


120 

deuce  and  circumstances  surrounding  them,  and  we  see  the 
motive  flowing  from  the  same  source,  you  see  the  same  par- 
ties in  action  and  you  find  strong  and  controlling  features  of 
corroboration  supporting  Orchard's  story. 

Another  thing  you  should  consider  is  the  fact  that  no  one 
was  ever  prosecuted  for  killing  Gregory.  He  was  murdered 
there  in  the  city  and  there  was  no  stir  whatever,  apparently, 
to  prosecute.  This  is  a  thing  you  ought  to  consider  with 
reference  to  all  the  transactions  that  took  place  in  Colorado 
and  wTith  which  it  is  charged  the  Western  Federation  was 
connected.  There  was  some  powerful  influence  protcting 
the  murderers.  There  was  some  mighty  power  staying  the 
hand  of  the  law.  There  was  some  influence  which  made 
cowards  and  criminals  of  those  whose  duty  it  was  to  uphold 
the  law.  Perhaps  this  finds  an  explanation  in  the  statement 
of  Orchard,  wherein  he  says  that  Haywood  went  to  the  Sheriff 
next  day  and  stopped  the  investigation  with  reference  to  the 
killing  of  Gregory. 

Peabody  and  Goddard. 

There  were  some  attempts  made  upon  the  lives  of  Peabody 
and  Goddard  and  Gabbert  and  Bell  in  the  city  of  Denver  to 
which  we  desire  to  call  your  attention  next.  Want  of  time 
compels  me  to  group  these.  Mr.  Orchard  states  that  he  at- 
tempted to  kill  Goddard  and  Gabbert  and  Bell  and  Governor 
Peabody.  In  the  first  place  there  can  be  no  doubt,  I  presume, 
that  a  bomb  was  found  at  Goddard's  gate  and  it  had  been 
there  for  some  considerable  time.  The  circumstances  sur- 
rounding it  show  that  it  is  Orchard's  brand.  It  is  fastened  to 
the  gate  just  as  he  fastened  one  to  Governor  Steunenberg's 
gate.  It  is  true  that  it  miscarried — accidents  will  sometimes 
happen  even  with  the  schemes  of  the  Western  Federation  of 


121 

Minors.  After  Orchard's  confession  parties  are  sent  to  un- 
cover the  bomb  and  they  find  it  exactly  as  he  told  them  they 
would.  Who  was  Goddard?  He  was  a  member  of  the  Su- 
preme Court  of  Colorado.  He  had  rendered  a  decision  in 
which  they  were  much  interested  and  against  them.  But  that 
is  very  slight  testimony  as  to  motive  compared  with  the  tes- 
timony of  the  defendant  himself  upon  the  stand.  He  states 
upon  cross-examination  that  he  regarded  Goddard  in  the  light 
of  a  corrupt  enemy  of  the  Western  Federation  of  Miners.  Per- 
haps that  is  not  the  exact  language  but  that-  is  the  effect  of 
his  testimony.  He  regarded  Hearn  and  Bell  and  Peabody  and 
Goddard  and  Gabbert  as  the  tools  of  the  capitalists,  as  cor- 
rupt representatives  of  those  who  organized  against  them, 
as  men  who  would  not  give  them  justice — as  their  uncom- 
promising enemies.  Gabbert  stood  in  the  same  position. 
There  was  a  bomb  placed  for  him  in  almost  the  same  man- 
ner as  Orchard  and  Jack  Simpkins  fixed  the  first  bomb  for 
Governor  Steunenberg.  It  was  placed  so  the  wire  would 
stretch  across  the  pathway.  The  result  was  not  Gabbert's 
death  but  Mr.  Walley's.  The  bomb  did  its  awful  work  but  not 
upon  the  right  individual.  Now  who  was  it  in  the  city  of 
Denver  that  was  going  around  planting  these  bombs  at  gates 
and  across  pathways?  Do  you  see  any  similarity  between  this 
work  and  the  work  that  took  place  down  in  Caldwell,  the 
work  at  the  Independence  depot,  the  work  at  Bradley 's  resi- 
dence, the  work  in  the  Vindicator  mine?  Whose  motive  fur- 
nished the  moving  power  for  this  crime?  Certainly  this  tin- 
horn gambler  was  not  acting  upon  his  own  responsibility  and 
alone.  He  did  not  care  what  decisions  Gabbert  rendered, .he 
did  not  care  what  military  orders  Governor  Peabody  issued  or 
caused  to  be  issued.  Somewhere  there  was  some  one  who 
was  interested  and  who  was  aiditfg,  abetting  and  upholding 


122 

him  in  these  crimes.  The  evidence  in  this  case  established 
very  thoroughly  that  Orchard  went  down  to  Canyon  City  for 
the  purpose  of  killing  Governor  Peabody,  and  this  is  a  very 
important  matter.  He  carried  with  him  the  bomb  which  he 
afterwards  brought  to  Idaho.  This  bomb  was  discovered  by 
Mr.  Vaughn  in  Orchard's  room.  Here  we  again  come  in  di- 
rect touch  with  Pettibone.  Mr.  Pettibone  suggested  to  Mr. 
Orchard  that  they  take  as  a  cover  a  commission  to  write  in- 
surance. He  suggests  to  him  that  if  he  will  go  up  to  Mr. 
Stearns,  the  general  agent,  that  he,  Pettibone,  will  give  him 
some  letters  of  recommendation,  and  the  letters  are  in  evi- 
dence here,  the  letter  from  Mr.  Pettibone,  Mr.  Sullivan  and 
a  number  of  other  parties.  Mr.  Orchard  gets  his  commission 
to  write  life  insurance,  goes  to  Canyon  City,  shadows  the 
house  of  Peabody  but  finds  no  opportunity.  But  every  time 
he  leaves  Denver  he  leaves  by  the  assistance  and  connivance 
of  Pettibone,  and  every  time  he  gets  through  with  his  job  he 
returns.  Of  course  there  can  be  no  question  as  to  the  atti- 
tude of  Governor  Peabody  toward  the  Western  Federation  of 
Miners.  There  can  be  no  question  as  to  the  hatred  they  bore 
him.  They  regarded  him  as  their  greatest  enemy.  Again  the 
motive  appears,  again  the  action  of  these  parties  is  shown, 
and  again  Orchard  is  shown  to  be  in  action  by  no  motive 
of  his  own  nor  any  reason  for  acting  except  that  he  is  to  be 
considered  the  tool,  the  machinery,  of  this  conspiracy  and 
these  conspirators. 

What  was  the  relation  of  Mr.  Orchard  to  the  Western  Fed- 
eration of  Miners  during  the  year  1905,  the  time  within 
which  he  was  attempting  to  kill  Peabody  and  Goddard  and 
Gabbert  and  Bell?  That  he  was  living  in  Denver  we  thor- 
oughly established  and,  as  I  understand,  is  not  now  disputed 
by  the  defense.  This  is  proven  by  Max  Malich,  by  Haywood, 


123 

by  the  policeman,  aside  from  the  testimony  of  the  State.  That 
he  was  upon  the  benefit  roll  is  also  admitted.  That  he  was 
at  this  time  a  suspect  on  account  of  the  Independence  depot  is 
well  proven.  That  he  was  going  under  an  assumed  name 
and  in  hiding  except  as  to  the  Western  Federation  is  well 
established.  There  are  two  letters  which  have  been  intro- 
duced in  vidence.  These  are  letters  written  by  Orchard  to 
his  wife.  They  are  dated  at  San  Francisco.  This  is  for  the 
purpose  of  misleading  her.  He  suggests  in  the  letters  that  he 
will  send  her  letters  to  headquarters,  meaning  the  Western 
Federation  headquarters,  and  that  they  will  be  forwarded 
from  there.  He  advises  her  to  send  her  letters  to  headquar- 
ters and  they  will  be  forwarded  to  him.  Now  as  a  matter  of 
fact,  at  this  very  time  he  was  in  Denver  at  headquarters  day 
after  day.  In  these  letters  he  refers  to  Pat  Maloney  as  the 
man  who  carries  the  letters.  Pat  Maloney  was  in  the  em- 
ploy of  the  Western  Federation.  He  also  states  in  these  let- 
ters that  he  has  arranged  with  the  secretary  (Mr.  Hay  wood) 
to  take  care  of  his  wife  while  he  is  absent.  This  thoroughly 
corroborates  Orchard  when  he  testifies  in  answer  to  Mr.  Rich- 
ardson's questions  that  his  wife  had  been  provided  for.  He 
also  refers  in  these  letters  to  the  association  of  himself  with 
Adams  and  Mrs.  Adams  and  that  he  had  sent  a  hundred  dol- 
lars to  his  wife  through  Mrs.  Adams.  In  other  words,  his  as- 
sociation with  this  organization  is  continuous,  secret  and 
false,  from  the  6th  day  of  June,  1904,  until  the  30th  day  of 
January,  1906,  at  which  time  fifteen  hundred  dollars  was  paid 
to  an  attorney  to  defend  him  for  the  murder  of  Governor 
Steunenberg. 

As  another  evidence  of  this  association,  and  close  associa- 
tion during  this  time,  we  call  your  attention  to  the  fact  that 
Orchard  testifies  that  they  purchased  a  dark  horse  to  be  used 


124 

in  driving  about  the  town  to  locate  Peabody  and  Bell.  We 
bring  a  witness  here,  a  colored  man,  who  testifies  in  thorough 
corroboration  of  Orchard  that  during  this  time  Orchard  and 
Pettibone  came  to  him  to  buy  a  horse ;  that  Orchard  and  the 
colored  man  got  into  the  buggy  and  drove  down  to  the  Feder- 
ation headquarters ;  that  Orchard  got  out  of  the  buggy,  went 
upstairs  and  got  Mr.  Haywood,  whom  the  colored  man  iden- 
tifies here  in  the  court  room,  and  that  Orchard  and  Haywood 
got  into  the  buggy  and  drove  around  to  test  the  horse;  that 
after  they  returned,  Orchard  and  the  colored  man  drove  back 
to  the  stable  and  that  a  short  time  afterwards  Orchard  came 
over  and  paid  him  the  money  for  the  horse.  I  regard  this 
as  a  peculiarly  strong  circumstance,  a  thorough  corroboration 
of  Orchard,  showing  close  association  of  the  men  at  the  very 
time  they  are  trying  to  accomplish  the  death  of  these  citi- 
zens of  Colorado  and  just  prior  to  their  starting  Orchard  to 
Caldwell. 

When  you  pile  one  of  these  circumstances  upon  another, 
connecting  one  fact  with  another,  when  you  take  the  story  of 
Harry  Orchard  and  follow  it  up  with  this  long  line  of  corrob- 
orative facts,  there  can  be  no  possible  answer  other  than  yes 
to  the  questions :  Was  there  a  conspiracy,  was  this  defend- 
ant a  member  of  it,  has  Harry  Orchard  testified  to  the  truth, 
and  is  he  corroborated? 

Here  I  wish  to  .call  attention  to  some  of  the  startling  doc- 
trines of  Mr.  Darrow.  This  is  not  for  the  purpose  of  attacking 
the  man  personally.  Personally,  I  like  him  very  much  but 
I  do  not  like  his  doctrines  as  given  to  this  jury.  I  am  going 
to  say  a  word,  in  answer  to  them.  No  better  time  could  be 
selected  for  a  reply  than  while  we  are  discussing  these  whole- 
sale attempts  of  Orchard  to  murder  Peabody  and  Gabbert  and 
Goddard  and  Bell.  When  you  heard  these  doctrines  thus  given 


125 

to  you  yesterday  you  must  have  said  to  yourselves  at  once, 
This  man  justifies  murder,  coldblooded,  deliberate  murder, 
openly  in  the  courts  of  our  country.  If  Haywood  felt  as 
his  counsel  feels,  who  speaks  for  him,  if  this  is  the  creed  of  the 
Western  Federation  of  Miners,  why  should  they  not  kill  and 
murder?  The  surprise  is  that  Peabody  and  Gabbert  and  God- 
dard  and  Bell  are  not  all  dead.  If  "constitutions  are  only 
made  for  the  rich,"  if  "laws  are  made  to  protect  the  rich  and 
oppress  the  poor/'  if  that  is  the  way  they  feel,  if  society  is 
rotten  and  debauched  and  corrupt,  if  the  vermin  of  shame  is 
crawling  everywhere  on  the  body  politic,  why  not  raise  the  red 
hand  of  anarchy  and  drive  everything  back  to  chaos  and 
force?  These  are  the  potent  reasons  for  crime,  and  if  you 
lodge  them  securely  within  the  brain  of  man  you  are  render- 
ing him  capable  of  crime.  Shame,  oh  shame,  that  one  so 
gifted,  one  so  blest  with  genius,  has  so  far  forgotten.  The 
constitution  was  made  for  you.  It  is  the  shield  of  the  weak. 
Brave  men  are  every  day  throwing  it  around  the  poor  and 
the  helpless.  Patriots  purchased  it  with  their  blood  and 
patriots  will  preserve  it  at  the  cost  of  limb  and  life.  Our 
laws  are  made  for  us.  Thi§  splendid  old  fabric  is  the  price- 
less estate  which  belongs  to  all.  Men  are  not  all  fiends,  love 
still  lives  in  the  human  heart,  virtue  still  seams  our  civiliza- 
tion with  strength,  patriotism  still  stirs  the  breast  of  man, 
law  reigns  and  there  is  a  Power  above,  just  and  righteous  al- 
together. Whatever  there  may  be  of  factions,  whatever  there 
may  be  of  classes,  whatever  there  may  be  of  trouble,  all  will 
be  finally  settled  and  adjusted  in  accordance  with  right  and 
justice — brave  men,  courageous  men  will  lead  the  way  and  all 
will  follow.  Somewhere  and  in  some  way  will  be  found 
lodged  within  the  law  a  power  which  will  guide  and  control 
men  without  the  necessity  of  their  taking  the  law  in  their  own 


126 

hands.  These  doctrines  that  have  been  given  you  are  wrong, 
they  make  men  wrong,  they  inspire  doubt  and  distress,  hatred 
and  murder.  These  are  the  doctrines  that  have  turned  from 
its  true  course  this  great  labor  organization.  These  teachings 
show  as  their  fruitage  the  awful  story  this  evidence  reveals. 
They  are  at  the  bottom  of  a  vast  number  of  these  crimes.  We 
are  trying  to  determine  tonight  whether  or  not  the  State  of 
Idaho  can  enforce  the  law  and  stop  the  spread  of  these  blight- 
ing doctrines.  We  are  trying  to  determine  whether  there  is 
some  of  that  old  courage,  that  manhood  which,  willing  to  stand 
up  and  uphold  the  law,  protect  property  and  shield  life. 

What  a  scene  we  have  passed  through  in  these  sixty  days 
of  trial !  Twenty  odd  murders  proven  and  not  a  single  man 
punished.  Men  blown  to  pieces,  laboring  men  trying  to  earn 
their  daily  bread,  trying  to  plant  the  dimple  of  joy  upon  the 
faces  of  prattling  babes,  trying  to  drive  the  shadows  from 
the  simple  hearth  stone — blown  to  an  unrecognizable  mass 
because  they  were  not  union  men.  Men  high  in  the  walks  of 
life  murdered  upon  the  very  door  steps  of  their  homes  be- 
cause they  sought  to  uphold  the  law.  And  at  last,  when  we 
'try  to  administer  punishment  the. State  is  attacked,  the  courts 
attacked,  everything  we  love  denounced,  our  dead  slandered. 
Never  was  there  a  greater  call  for  courage,  for  manhood,  than 
the  call  which  comes  to  you  tonight.  Some  of  you  have  stood 
the  test  when  the  flag  was  in  danger.  Some  of  you  have 
stood  in  the  trenches  where  death  seemed  king,  but  never  was 
there  a  greater  demand  upon  you  for  intelligence,  for  manly, 
fearless  action,  for  courage  and  conscience  than  now. 

I  have  read  Danton's  harangue  to  the  mob  in  the  streets  of 
Paris;  I  have  all  but  heard  the  silvery  tones  of  Desmoulins 
in  the  Jacobin  clubs,  where  organized  assassins  toyed  with 
the  lives  of  men;  I  can  see  Robespierre,  now  drunk  with  his 


127 

fellow's  blood,  staggering  back  against  the  pillars  of  the  as- 
sembly hall  as  retribution  raised  its  cold  hand  to  lead  him 
forth  to  death,  but  never  have  I  heard  or  read  so  frightful 
an  attack  upon  all  those  things  for  which  the  saints  of  justice 
have  suffered  martyrdom  as  I  have  heard  in  this  court  room. 
Some  may  falter,  some  of  us  may  not  stand  the  test,  but  there 
will  be  found  somewhere  men  brave  enough  to  do  their  duty. 
Such  doctrines  can  not  prevail. 

Gentlemen,  I  am  worn  out  and  I  have  no  doubt  you  are 
more  than  weary  yourselves.  I  am  not  going  to  trespass 
much  longer  upon  your  time.  You  have  been  patient  and 
considerate  in  the  extreme.  The  great  task  imposed  upon 
you,  the  great  trust  reposed  in  you,  have  stimulated  and  sus- 
tained you  throughout  this  long  and  tedious  trial  and  you 
have  watched  and  listened  and  been  faithful.  You  are  today 
carrying  with  you  the  anxious  solicitude  of  an  entire  people. 
There  is  no  home  in  Idaho  tonight  but  thoughts  of  you  and 
your  final  duty  will  intermingle  with  the  sentiments  which 
made  that  home  possible.  The  court,  the  faithful  officers,  the 
attorneys,  now  pass  into  the  background  and  all  thoughts,  all 
considerations  are  with  you — the  twelve  men  selected  and 
sworn  and  solemnly  charged  with  the  most  grave  and  solemn 
task  ever  given  to  twelve  men  in  Idaho — they  are  waiting, 
waiting  for  the  voice  of  your  foreman. 

You  will  never  again  occupy  a  position  so  important,  so 
responsible  in  all  its  bearings  as  you  do  now.  On  the  one 
hand,  if  you  believe  in  the  face  of  this  evidence  that  this  man 
is  innocent  you  will  release  him,  turn  him  loose ;  but  on  the 
other  hand,  if  we  have  pointed  to  the  men  who  conceived  and 
caused  to  be  carried  into  dire  execution  this  awful  crime,  then 
in  the  name  of  law,  in  the  name  of  the  honor  of  our  State,  you 
will  act  without  the  dread  of  men  or  the  fear  of  men,  for  you 


128 

know  that  after  all  is  done  and  the  work  is  finished  and  the 
excitement  has  died  away  the  thing  which  will  remain  with 
you  permanently  is  that  sleepless  monitor  of  the  soul  asking 
over  and  over  as  the  days  go  by,  "Were  you  brave  and  faith- 
ful in  the  discharge  of  the  most  supreme  duty  of  life?" 

I  have  no  doubt  that  many  times  during  this  trial  you  have 
been  much  moved  by  the  eloquence  of  counsel  for  the  defense. 
They  are  men  of  wondrous  powers.  They  have  been  brought 
here  because  so  rarely  gifted  in  power  to  sway  the  minds  of 
men.  It  was  their  part  in  loyalty  to  their  clients  to  toy  with 
your  sympathies,  to  call  you  if  possible  from  the  plain  path 
of  justice  and  duty,  to  lead  you,  if  possible,  from  the  brave 
and  manly  consideration  of  the  real  facts  of  this  case.  But 
as  I  listened  to  the  music  of  their  voices  and  felt  for  a  mo- 
ment the  compelling  touch  of  their  hypnotic  influence  there 
came  back  to  me  all  the  more  vividly,  when  released  from 
the  spell,  another  scene — there  came  to  me  in  more  moving 
tones  other  voices.  I  remembered  again  the  awful  night  of 
December  30,  1905,  a  night  which  added  ten  years  to  the  life 
of  some  who  are  in  this  court  room  now.  I  felt  again  its  cold 
and  merciless  chill,  faced  the  drifting  snow  and  peered  at  last 
into  the  darkness  for  the  sacred  spot  where  last  lay  my  dead 
friend,  and  saw  true,  only  too  true,  the  stain  of  his  life  blood 
upon  the  whited  earth.  I  saw  men  and  women  standing  about 
in  storm  and  darkness,  silent  in  the  presence  of  the  dreadful 
mystery,  and  Idaho  disgraced  and  dishonored — I  saw  murder 
— no,  not  murder — a  thousand  times  worse  than  murder,  I 
saw  anarchy  displaying  its  first  bloody  triumph  to  Idaho.  I 
saw  government  by  assassination  pointing  to  the  mangled 
form  of  Frank  Steunenberg,  the  broken  family,  the  blood  be- 
spattered home,  and  saying  to  all — look,  look  and  take  notice ! 
Here  is  the  fate  of  all  who  do  their  duty  to  their  State  and 


129 

the  government.  As  I  thought  over  that  night  again  I  said 
to  myself,  Thou  living  Qpd,  can  time  or  the  arts  of  counsel 
unteach  the  lessons  of  that  hour?  No,  no;  for  the  sake  of  all 
that  good  men  hold  near  and  dear  let  us  not  be  misled,  K  t 
us  not  forget,  let  us  not  be  falterers  in  this  great  test  of  cour- 
age and  heroism. 

Soon  these  men  will  be  gone,  their  homes  are  elsewhere, 
and  as  brothers  of  the  bar  I  wish  them  well.  They  look  for 
protection  to  other  States,  to  other  laws.  But  we  remain  and 
with  us  remains  the  solemn  duty  of  protecting  life  and  prop- 
erty, of  standing  by  the  State  you  have  helped  to  build  and 
within  whose  borders  you  have  planted  the  reign  of  law. 
Gentlemen,  I  do  not  want  innocent  men  convicted,  heaven 
knows  I  do  not  thirst  for  innocent  blood.  Counsel  for  the 
defense  have  tried  to  make  you  believe  that  we  would  have 
professional  distinction  at  the  cost  of  human  liberty  or  life. 
There  has  been  something  in  this  cause  to  make  a  man  forget 
all  professional  pride.  I  only  want  what  you  want — murder 
stopped  in  Idaho.  I  only  want  what  you  want — human  life 
made  safe — assassination  put  out  of  business.  I  only  want 
what  you  want — the  gate  which  leads  to  our  homes,  the  yard 
gate  whose  inward  swing  tells  of  the  returning  husband  and 
father,  shielded  and  guarded  by  the  courage  and  manhood  of 
Idaho  juries. 

But  they  say  it  is  a  solemn  thing  to  take  life.  True,  very 
true.  But  the  fearless  performance  of  duty  by  courts  and 
juries  protects  society  and  prevents  the  spread  of  murder  and 
anarchy.  In  the  older  days  when  man  walked  closer  to  his 
God  and  heard  more  clearly  the  admonitions  of  the  moral 
teachings  under  which  we  must  thrive  or  perish,  it  was  said, 
"By  man's  blood  shall  man's  blood  be  shed."  He  who  takes 
life  in  the  malice  of  the  heart  forfeits  his  right  to  live — for 


130 

the  sake  of  society,  for  the  sake  of  all  men  who  love  their 
fellow  men  and  want  to  live  with  them  in  peace — he  forfeits 
his  right  to  live.  It  has  been  so  from  the  beginning,  so  by 
the  sanction  of  Him  who  provides  all  things  for  the  good  of 
the  children  of  men. 

If  this  be  true  where  individual  man  slays  but  another,  ten 
thousand  times  more  true  should  it  be  where  men  in  hatred 
and  malice,  in  stealth  and  in  secrecy  combine,  confederate  and 
agree  to  carry  on  and  commit  indiscriminate  murder,  where 
men  defy  law,  denounce  society,  trample  upon  all  rights,  hu- 
man and  divine,  and  thirst  for  the  blood  of  all  who  chance  to 
thwart  or  oppose  their  criminal  purposes.  Anarchy,  pale, 
bloodless,  restless,  hungry  demon  from  the  crypts  of  hell — 
fighting  for  a  foothold  in  Idaho !  What  shall  we  do  ?  This 
is  the  question.  Shall  we  crush  it,  shall  we  make  it  unsafe 
for  the  disciples  of  this  creed  to  do  business  here,  or  shall  we 
palter  and  trim  and  compromise  and  invite  it  to  choose  other 
victims.  These  are  the  questions  to  be  settled  by  you  and 
you  alone.  It  is  up  to  you.  In  the  court  of  your  own  con- 
science the  verdict  must  be  worked  out  and  I  must  leave  it 
all  with  you.  Yet  I  hesitate  to  close.  This  matter  lies  nearer 
my  heart  than  anything  in  my  whole  life.  Nevertheless  I  can 
but  turn  the  matter  over  to  you  for  your  final  action.  Thank- 
ing you  for  the  State  for  your  long  and  devoted  service  and 
bidding  you  have  courage  for  your  final  great  duty,  I  leave 
the  State's  interests  with  you. 


